alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1205

EMPLOYERS COUNCIL ON FLEXIBLE COMPENSATION,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH FELTMAN; ANTHONY WAYNE HAWKS; EMPLOYERS COUNCIL ON 

FLEXIBLE COMPENSATION, LTD.,

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 10-1206

EMPLOYERS COUNCIL ON FLEXIBLE COMPENSATION,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH FELTMAN; ANTHONY WAYNE HAWKS; EMPLOYERS COUNCIL ON 

FLEXIBLE COMPENSATION, LTD.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00371-JCC-TRJ)

Argued: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.
- 2 -

Affirmed in part and reversed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

ARGUED: Anthony Wayne Hawks, HAWKS LAW OFFICE, Bethany Beach, 

Delaware, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Bernard Joseph 

DiMuro, DIMUROGINSBERG, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Edward A. Pennington, 

HANIFY & KING, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants/CrossAppellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Defendants Kenneth Feltman, Anthony Hawks, and Employers 

Council on Flexible Compensation, Ltd. (collectively Defendants) 

appeal the district court’s order awarding plaintiff Employers 

Council on Flexible Compensation (Plaintiff) $292,500.00 in 

attorneys’ fees and $16,885.97 in costs, pursuant to § 35(a) of 

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Defendants challenge the 

award as excessive. Plaintiff noted a cross-appeal to challenge 

the award as inadequate.

With one minor exception, which requires reversal, we 

affirm the district court’s attorneys’ fees and costs award in 

favor of Plaintiff on the reasoning of the district court, as 

set forth in its carefully crafted and thorough opinion. See

Employers Council on Flexible Comp. v. Feltman, 2010 WL 186457 

(E.D.Va. January 13, 2010). This disposition grants no 

appellate relief to Plaintiff on its cross-appeal. The one 

minor exception requiring reversal pertains to the district 

court’s award of $1,188.98 in costs to Plaintiff for computer 

forensic fees. Plaintiff concedes on appeal that this portion 

of the district court’s award of costs was in error and should 

be reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s award 

of costs to the extent it awarded Plaintiff $1,188.98 in costs 

for computer forensic fees. In all other respects, the district 
- 4 -

court’s order awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs is 

affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART

AND REVERSED IN PART
Order entered August 4, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00214-CR

ANTHONY TERRENCE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1271255-V

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his motion for 

rehearing. We GRANT the motion. We extend the deadline for appellant to file his motion for 

rehearing to August 10, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> SWEDISH KRONOR
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                0.11723
<CASH>                                           7,370
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,365
<PP&E>                                          11,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,808
<SALES>                                        172,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,822
<CGS>                                           79,794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                       932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,820
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.02


</TABLE>
----

Action brought on 5 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-427/04)

(2005/C 6/45)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Wouter Wils and Georgios Zavvos, members of the Commission's Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 20 April 2003.

----

(1)OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 1.

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4869 

To provide for restroom gender parity in Federal buildings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2010 

Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. VISCLOSKY, and Ms. CLARKE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for restroom gender parity in Federal buildings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restroom Gender Par5 ity in Federal Buildings Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO REVISE FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

7 REGULATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the 

9 date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 

10 Regulation shall be revised— 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4869 IH

1 (1) to direct any Federal procurement execu2 tives involved in the acquisition, construction, or 

3 major renovation (including contracting for the con4 struction or major renovation) of any facility to in5 crease infrastructure gender parity by— 

6 (A) constructing buildings in such a way 

7 that the number of toilets in women’s restrooms 

8 will equal or exceed the number of toilets (in9 cluding urinals) in men’s restrooms; or 

10 (B) if such a number is unachievable or 

11 not feasible, receive a statement by the Admin12 istrator of General Services as to why such a 

13 number of toilets is not needed; and 

14 (2) to direct Federal procurement executives in15 volved in leasing buildings to give preference to the 

16 lease of facilities that meet or exceed the female toi17 let to male toilet (including urinals) ratio of 1 to 1. 

18 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 90 days after the 

19 date of promulgation of revised regulations under sub20 section (a), the Director for Federal Procurement Policy 

21 shall issue guidance to all Federal procurement executives 

22 providing direction and instructions to renegotiate the de23 sign of proposed facilities, renovations for existing faciliVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:26 Mar 18, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4869.IH H4869

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4869 IH

1 ties, and leased facilities to incorporate improvements that 

2 are consistent with this section. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
In the MATTER OF: William Thomas DUNCAN, Jr.

No. 452A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Carolyn J. Woodruff, Jessica Snowberger Bullock, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Duncan, William Thomas (Jr.)

Chrystal S. Kay, Attorney at Law, for Randolph County DSS

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Petitioner on the 27th of December 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 30th of January 2019."
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 21 19

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Pen ny L. Bart on
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Act in g C om m is si on er, So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

6, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Pen ny L. Bart on ap pe al s th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s or de r affi rm in g th e de ni al of 1 di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s. Fo r rev ers al , Bart on arg ue s th at th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (ALJ) erred (1 ) in as se ss in g her res id ua l fun ct io na l ca pa ci ty, an d i n fa il in g t o
as si gn ap pr op ria te w e i g ht to th e fin di ng s of he r tre at in g an d ex am in in g ph y si ci an s
an d ot he r m ed ic al so ur ces ; (2 ) in fin di ng th at sh e was cap ab le of pe rfo rm in g he r pa st rel ev an t wor k, an d ot he r wor k id en ti fie d by a vo cat io na l ex pe rt; an d (3 ) in fai li ng to
co ns id er al l of th e ev id en c e i n t he reco rd , in cl ud in g th e ob se rv at io ns of an d in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by t hi rd pa rti es
. Fo ll owi n g a c a r e fu l an d th or ou gh rev ie w o f th e reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le , th at Bart on ’s arg um en ts do no t su pp or t reve rs al , an d th at an ex te nd ed di sc us si on is no t warra nt ed

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t
co ur t’s jud gm en t. See 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Mat t Je ffre y W hi two rth , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r 1 th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by con se nt of t he pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).
-2

-
#### Brian BIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 29, 2003.

Appellant, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which alleged several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the appellant’s motion because it was successive and because it was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Because the appellant’s motion is successive, we affirm.

The trial court determined that the summary denial of the appellant’s previous rule 3.850 motion was pending on appeal with this Court at the time the appellant filed his second motion and concluded that it was without jurisdiction for that reason. Although the appellant’s appeal of a previous denial was pending on appeal at the time he filed his second motion, the issues in the motions were unrelated, so the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to rule on the subsequent motion. *McFarland v. State,*808 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, the appellant’s motion was properly dismissed as successive because he failed to show that the grounds asserted were not known and could not have been known to him at the time of his earlier motion. *Zeigler v. State,*632 So.2d 48 (Fla.1993), *cert. denied,*513 U.S. 830, 115 S.Ct. 104, 130 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20567]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense; Defense Information Systems Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Membership of the Defense Information Systems Agency 
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Performance Review Board. The 
Performance Review Board provides a fair and impartial review of Senior 
Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and makes 
recommendations to the Director, Defense Information Systems Agency, 
regarding final performance ratings and performance awards for DISA SES 
members.

DATES: October 14, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Bazemore, Chief, Civilian 
Personnel Division, Defense Information Systems Agency, P.O. Box 4502, 
Arlington, Virginia 22204-4502, (703) 607-4400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of DISA career executives appointed 
to serve as members of the BISA Performance Review Board. Appointees 
will serve one year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.
    MG Marilyn A. Quagliotti, USA, Vice Director, DISA, Chairperson.
    Ms. Diann L. McCoy, Component Acquisition Executive, DISA, Member.
    Mr. John I. Garing, Director for Strategic Planning and 
Information, DISA, Member.
    Mr. John J. Penkoske, Jr., Director for Manpower, Personnel, and 
Security, DISA, Member.

    Dated: October 6, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-20567 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
ECB Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of ECB
Bancorp, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to the ECB Bancorp, Inc. Omnibus Stock
Ownership and Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 2, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ECB Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary
as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-
year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31,
2000 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ECB Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 19, 2001
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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Excellency Investment Realty
Trust, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Carlos D. Carrillo, Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer) of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.



By:  /s/ Carlos D. Carrillo
   --------------------------------------------------
         Carlos D. Carrillo
         Chief Financial Officer
         (principal financial and accounting officer)
         Dated this 20th day of June, 2008
#### Gary SULT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-5230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 4, 2003.

COVINGTON, Judge.

Gary Suit challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court summarily denied the motion, finding that it was untimely filed. We agree with the trial court that Suit’s motion was untimely. However, Suit also raised a sentencing error that the trial court should have addressed as a motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a).

Suit’s sentencing documents indicate that he was convicted of armed burglary, a first-degree felony. *See*§ 810.02(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). For this conviction, he received a thirty-year sentence as a habitual felony offender. Suit alleges that the jury specifically found that he was unarmed *335when he committed the burglary. He also alleges that the trial court orally sentenced him on second-degree burglary of a dwelling, not on first-degree armed burglary. If Suit’s allegations are correct, his thirty-year sentence is illegal. *See*§ § 810.02(3) and 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1991).

The trial court should have considered this claim under rule 3.800(a). *See Barron v. State,*827 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). This claim is timely since rule 3.800(a) has no time limitation for filing a motion to correct illegal sentence. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider this claim. We affirm the denial of Suit’s remaining claims.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Trim Holding Group (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Louis Bertoli, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | (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 as of the date and for the  periods expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Louis Bertoli       |
|-------------------------|
| Louis Bertoli           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| August 20, 2012         |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Alberto Manuel Horcajo Aguirre, certifythat:

 

1.	I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Telefônica Brasil S.A.;

 

2.	Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.	The Company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the Company and have:

 

a.	designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.	designed such internalcontrol over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c.	evaluated the effectivenessof the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d.	disclosed in this reportany change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.	The Company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a.	all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.	any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.