alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ralph M. HANSEN, Jr., P.E., Appellant, v. FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 1D02-2614.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2003.

*426Robert D. Newell, Jr., of Newell & Terry, P.A., Tallahassee, Attorneys for Appellant.

Douglas D. Sunshine, Tallahassee, Attorney for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the revocation of his professional engineering license in Florida and a $5,000 fíne imposed by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers and on file with the Florida Engineers Management Corporation. Appellee concedes that the $5,000 penalty imposed exceeded the monetary penalty allowed under the statute under which Appellant was charged. Accordingly, we agree with Appellee that the penalty should be reduced to $8,000, the maximum penalty permissible.

Appellant’s other issues on appeal are without merit. We therefore reverse and remand to the Board for entry of a Final Order correcting the administrative fine to $8,000. The revocation of Appellant’s license is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4718 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the taxation of 

unemployment compensation for 3 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Mrs. BONO MACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend 

the taxation of unemployment compensation for 3 years. 

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 ‘‘Stop Unfair Taxes Act 

5 of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF TAX ON UNEMPLOYMENT COM7 PENSATION. 

8 Section 85 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (re9 lating to unemployment compensation) is amended by add10 ing at the end the following new subsection: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4718 IH

1 ‘‘(d) TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.—Subsection (a) shall 

2 not apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 

3 2009, and before January 1, 2013.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Phillip N. NORLAND, Appellant, v. VILLAGES AT COUNTRY CREEK MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC., Jack Blackburn, Frank Binka, Ed Eisele, Robert Spurlock, Wimp Moyer, George Falber, Robert Selby, Gene Hersch, and Bill Martin, Appellees.

No. 2D02-3858.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 2, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 2003.

*771Phillip N. Norland, pro se.

' Michael R. Whitt and Sanjay Kurian of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Ft. Myers, for Appellees.

CANADY, Judge.

Phillip N. Norland appeals an award of attorney’s fees that followed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the appel-lees, Villages at Country Creek Master Association, Inc. (a homeowners’ association), and members of its board of directors. Norland’s complaint alleged a failure to comply with the provisions of chapter 617, Florida Statutes (1999), relating to the duties of homeowners’ associations. Section 617.305(1) provides that the prevailing party in such litigation is entitled to recover attorney’s fees. The appel-lees became the prevailing party when Norland’s claim was dismissed for failure to prosecute. *See Stout Jewelers v. Corson,*639 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that -defendant was prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees when plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute). Accordingly, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees pertaining to proceedings before the trial court.

However, we reverse the portion of the fee award pertaining to Norland’s previous appeals concerning the trial court’s dismissal of his suit. Since — as the appel-lees concede — neither this court nor the Florida Supreme Court issued an order awarding fees for Norland’s previous appeals, the trial court was without authority to award such fees. *See Rados v. Rados,*791 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that ordinarily “[a] trial court cannot award appellate attorney’s fees unless the appellate court has authorized such an award”). We therefore direct the trial court to recalculate the attorney’s fee award without including fees for those appeals.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ„ concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Cell Pathways, Inc. and subsidiaries:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-3
Registration Statement File No. 333-55158, Form S-8 Registration Statement File
No. 333-51762, Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 333-50514, Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-66701 and Form S-3 Registration Statement
File No. 333-93811.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 22, 2002
CHAVEZ v. WADLINGTON

366A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 9, 2018

Rebecca K. Watts, Attorney at Law, Monroe, for Chavez, Emily Susanna.

Joseph Wadlington, for Wadlington, Joseph Fitzgerald.

Serena Wadlington, for Wadlington, Serena Sebring.

*740The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of November 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2018."

Plaintiff-Appellant shall have up to and including the 6th day of December 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                               FORTH AMENDMENT TO
                             JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT

     Pursuant to Section 22 of the Joint Venture Agreement dated November 16,
1995 (the "JVA"), Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. ("Primus") and Trans Cosmos,
Inc. ("TCI") agree to amend the terms and conditions of their JVA with respect
to the formation and operation of their joint venture company, Primus Knowledge
Solutions, K.K. ("Primus KK"), effective this 7th day of November, 2001 (the
"Forth Amendment") as follows. Unless otherwise provided, capitalized terms used
in this Forth Amendment have the same meaning ascribed them in the JVA.

Section 1. Contract Term
           -------------

1.1  Article 10 Contract Term is amended in its entirety to provide as follows:
"Except as otherwise provided in Article 11 below, this Agreement shall continue
in effect unless earlier terminated (i) by mutual agreement; or (ii)
automatically upon the initial public offering of Primus KK resulting in the
registration for sale of the common stock of Primus KK (including stock held by
Primus and TCI subject to reasonable commercially standard lock up provisions)
on a recognized stock market."

Section 2. Cause for Termination of this Contract
           --------------------------------------

2.1  Article 11 Cause for Termination of this Contract, subsections (b) and (d)
are deleted in their entirety and all references to these subsections in the
text of the Agreement are removed.

Section 3.        Initial Public Offering
                  -----------------------

3.1  Primus and TCI will work in good faith and use commercially reasonable
     efforts to file an initial public offering for the sale of the common stock
     of Primus KK on a recognized stock market ("IPO") at a time when the Primus
     KK Board of Directors, under the counsel of an investment bank selected by
     the Primus KK Board of Directors, determine an IPO filing would be
     reasonable, but in any event prior to December 31, 2004.

               [Intentionally left blank--Signature page follows]

<PAGE>

All other terms and conditions of the JVA not modified by this Forth Amendment,
and the First, Second and Third Amendments remain in full force and effect. This
Forth Amendment is executed in the English language which version controls for
all purposes.


Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.                Primus Knowledge Solutions, K.K.


       /s/ Michael B. Brochu                           /s/ Masahiro Sasaki

Print: Michael A. Brochu                        Print: Masahiro Sasaki

Title: President and CEO                        Title: CEO and President

Date:  November 7, 2001                         Date:  November 7, 2001


Trans Cosmos, Inc.

       /s/ Yasuki Matsumoto


Print: Yasuki Matsumoto

Title: Executive Vice President

Date:  November 7, 2001
##### 



American Cellular Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Unaudited)
 The Predecessor CompanyPeriod fromformation (JuneYear ended
    
    
    Year ended
    
    
    Year ended
    
    
    30, 2003) to
    
    
    Period from
    
    
    Year endedDecember 31,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    January 1, 2003 to
    
    
    December 31,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    August 18, 2003
    
    
    2002($ In thousands)Earnings:(Loss) income from continuing operations
    
    $
    (1,945
    )
    
    $
    (4,666
    )
    
    $
    (25,701
    )
    
    $
    (4,349
    )
    
    $
    133,348
    
    
    $
    (813,575
    )Income tax (benefit) expense
    
    
    (2,080
    )
    
    
    (3,553
    )
    
    
    (11,605
    )
    
    
    (2,665
    )
    
    
    82,257
    
    
    
    (14,383
    )Pre-tax (loss) income
    
    
    (4,025
    )
    
    
    (8,219
    )
    
    
    (37,306
    )
    
    
    (7,014
    )
    
    
    215,605
    
    
    
    (827,958
    )Rental interest factor, which is 1/3 of
rental expense
    
    
    8,939
    
    
    
    6,507
    
    
    
    5,150
    
    
    
    1,762
    
    
    
    2,899
    
    
    
    4,364Dividends on mandatorily redeemable
preferred stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    704
    
    
    
    Interest expense
    
    
    98,524
    
    
    
    95,126
    
    
    
    94,796
    
    
    
    37,773
    
    
    
    78,136
    
    
    
    142,003Earnings
    
    
    103,438
    
    
    
    93,414
    
    
    
    62,640
    
    
    
    32,521
    
    
    
    297,344
    
    
    
    (681,591
    )Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    
    98,524
    
    
    
    95,126
    
    
    
    94,796
    
    
    
    37,773
    
    
    
    78,136
    
    
    
    142,003Dividends on mandatorily redeemable
preferred stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    704
    
    
    
    Rental interest factor, which is 1/3 of
rental expense
    
    
    8,939
    
    
    
    6,507
    
    
    
    5,150
    
    
    
    1,762
    
    
    
    2,899
    
    
    
    4,364Total fixed charges
    
    $
    107,463
    
    
    $
    101,633
    
    
    $
    99,946
    
    
    $
    39,535
    
    
    $
    81,739
    
    
    $
    146,367Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    
    3.64
    
    
    
    n/aDeficiency
    
    $
    4,025
    
    
    $
    8,219
    
    
    $
    37,306
    
    
    $
    7,014
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    827,958
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4431 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4431

 To provide that, if emergency unemployment compensation is extended, 
      prospective benefits shall be subject to gradual reduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2014

Mr. Bentivolio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that, if emergency unemployment compensation is extended, 
      prospective benefits shall be subject to gradual reduction.

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

SECTION 1. CONDITION.

    In the event that a law extending title IV of the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304) is 
enacted on or after the date of enactment of this Act, then, effective 
with respect to emergency unemployment compensation payable for each 
week beginning on or after such date of enactment or, if later, the 
effective date of the extension (the first such week, in the case of 
any individual, to be referred to as the individual's ``initial post-
extension week''), section 2 shall apply.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION.

    Notwithstanding any provision of title IV of the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2008, the amount of emergency unemployment 
compensation payable to any individual under such title shall--
            (1) for the first week of unemployment following the 
        initial post-extension week described in section 1, be equal 
        to--
                    (A) the amount that would otherwise be payable,
                    (B) reduced by 5 percent; and
            (2) for each week of unemployment subsequent to the week of 
        unemployment to which paragraph (1) applies, be equal to--
                    (A) the amount that would otherwise be payable,
                    (B) reduced by--
                            (i) the percentage reduction applicable 
                        under this section to the individual's 
                        preceding week of unemployment,
                            (ii) increased by 5 percentage points,
                but not below zero.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2065

EUNICE WAMIRU KAGWIMI, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-265-285; A95-265-284) Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 13, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ashley B. Han, 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: Eunice Wamiru Kagwimi, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In her petition for review, Kagwimi challengesthe determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. E lias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Kagwimi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Kagwimi’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum—even though the facts that must be proved are the same—an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Kagwimi fails to show that- 3 - she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Kagwimi fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). We find that Kagwimi failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)
AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOHN A BUTLERJohn A. ButlerChief Financial Officer
Clearwire CorporationMay 12, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Stephanie Montagne Zoanni v. Lemuel David Hogan

Appellate case number: 01-16-00584-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-34811-B

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: July 28, 2018

Party filing motion: Appellee, Lemuel David Hogan

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Massengale, 

Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey. 

Jennings, J., dissenting from the denial of en banc reconsideration.

Date: September 6, 2018
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00306-CV 

IN RE DEREK MONTEZ, RELATOR 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 

August 19, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pending before this court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Derek 

Montez. He requests that we direct the Potter County District Clerk to provide him with 

a copy of an order revoking his probation in Cause No. 42,803-A so that he may use it 

in filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2007 conviction and 

punishment in Cause No. 18,139-C. We deny the petition. 

An intermediate appellate court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus 

against a district clerk only when necessary to enforce its jurisdiction over a pending 

appeal. In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, 

orig. proceeding). Montez does not allege that he has an appeal pending in this court or 

that our directing the district clerk to provide him with a copy of the document in 
2

question would be for the purpose of enforcing our jurisdiction over any appeal pending 

before us. Thus, we have no jurisdiction over his request. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice
STATE of North Carolina v. Alan COOMBER, Defendant.

No. COA17-1416

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

NO ERROR.
STATE v. Marvin Louis MILLER, Jr.

268P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2018

Leslie C. Rawls, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Miller, Marvin Louis (Jr.)

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina *210The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of August 2018."
Exhibit
32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Precious Metals, Inc. (the Company),
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jesus Oliveras, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1.          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.          The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                               | 
|------------------------------ | 
|/s/
 Jesus Oliveras            | 
|                               | 
|Jesus
 Oliveras                | 
|Chief
 Financial Officer       | 
|(Principal
 Financial Officer) | 
|January
 19, 2010              | 

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PATRICK KELSO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 1010

[ July 1, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 00 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth J udicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr.,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 431998CF000559A

.

Patrick Kelso

, Bristol

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and A RTAU

, JJ. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.