alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 3, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-1339

Lower Tribunal No. 11-5508

________________

Teresa Arvizu, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Olegario

Rincon, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Heights Roofing, Inc., Israel J. Garcia, and Hector Cabrera,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marc

Schumacher, Judge.

Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A., and Raquel Y. Reyes-Lao and Ronald D.

Rodman, for appellant.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole and Daniel M. Schwarz, for

appellees.

Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Although this case reflects a tragic workplace accident that cost Olegario

Rincon his life, there was insufficient evidence that his supervisors acted with

culpable negligence within the meaning of section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes

(2009), as is required to remove this case from the ambit of the laws of Worker’s

Compensation. See Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 864 So. 2d 11, 16 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2003) (holding there was no evidence of culpable negligence where

supervisors were merely aware of poor condition and could have done more to

remedy it); Mekamy Oaks, Inc. v. Snyder, 659 So. 2d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA

1995) (holding supervisor’s removal of safety switch did not amount to crime of

culpable negligence). Summary judgment is affirmed.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4363 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4363

  To require commissary and exchange stores in the United States that 
 offer gasoline for commercial sale to offer the sale of at least one 
          fuel that contains not less than 13 percent ethanol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 8 (legislative day, June 7), 2022

  Mr. Thune (for himself and Ms. Duckworth) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require commissary and exchange stores in the United States that 
 offer gasoline for commercial sale to offer the sale of at least one 
          fuel that contains not less than 13 percent ethanol.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Fuel Choice Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. FUEL CHOICE AT COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b), each 
commissary or exchange store located on a military installation in the 
United States or any territory or possession of the United States that 
offers gasoline for commercial sale shall offer the sale of at least 
one fuel that contains not less than 13 percent ethanol not later than 
January 1, 2024.
    (b) Exception for Gas Stations Requiring New Storage Tanks.--A 
commissary or exchange store described in subsection (a) that requires 
the replacement of an underground storage tank to offer for sale fuel 
described in that subsection shall offer the sale of at least one such 
fuel not later than January 1, 2025.
                                 <all>
```
*

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David W. Dyer has elected to

participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(c). 

United States Court of Appeal,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-4878.

Beth Ann FARAGHER; Nancy Ewanchew, Plaintiffs-Appellants-CrossAppellees,

v.

CITY OF BOCA RATON, a political subdivision of the State of

Florida, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

Bill Terry; David Silverman, Defendants-Appellees.

May 13, 1996.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida (No. 92-8010-CIV-SH); Shelby Highsmith, Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion February 8, 1996, 11th Cir., 1996, 76 F.3d 1155)

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON,

EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit

Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a

poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en

banc, and a majority of the judges in this court in active service

having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this

court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 23, 2014

NO. 03-14-00751-CR

Warren Randall Hughes, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**Exhibit23**

 

# **Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

The Board of Directors

Ethan Allen InteriorsInc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-47935 and333-26949) on Form S-8 of Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. of our report dated August 24,2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ethan Allen InteriorsInc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2009 and 2008, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2009, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 30,2009, which report appears in the June 30, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. Our report refers to the Company’s adoption ofthe provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,*Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, aninterpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*as of July 1,2007*.*

 

 

/s/KPMG LLP

 

 

Stamford, Connecticut

August 27, 2009

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3872

Whirlpool Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4240

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7179]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993, Bell Communications Research, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 12, 1994, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Bell Communications 
Research, Inc. (``Bellcore'') has filed written notifications on behalf 
of Bellcore and PenWare, Inc. (``PenWare'') simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act, the identities of the parties are Bellcore, Livingston, NJ; 
and PenWare, Palo Alto, CA. Bellcore and PenWare entered into an 
agreement effective as of November 9, 1994, to engage in cooperative 
research to investigate and understand the technologies for wireless 
data applications and to better understand the feasibility and 
application of these technologies for exchange and exchange access 
services, including experimental prototype fabrication for the 
demonstration of such technologies.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7179 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2368

Quest Technologies dba Crystal Quest:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0675

_____________________________ G EICO G ENERAL I NSURANCE C OMPANY , Appellant,

v.

E NRIQUE B ARQUINERO a nd G ERALD F REEMAN , J R

. , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Virginia B. Norton , Judge

. April 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l).

L EWIS , R OWE , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Caryn L. Bellus and Bretton C. Albrecht of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami
, for Appellant.

Bryan S. Gowdy and Meredith A. Ross of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville
, for Appellee Enrique Barquinero

. No appearance for Appellee Gerald Freeman, Jr.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Dominique Monnet, President and Chief
Executive Officer of PDL BioPharma, Inc., certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of PDL
BioPharma, Inc.; and



(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does 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 this report.



Date: April 29, 2020



| | /s/
    DOMINIQUE MONNET                 
| | -----------------------------------------
| | Dominique
    Monnet                     
| | President
    and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2205

General Tools:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### Allen DENNEY, Appellant v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 9777.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Aug. 29, 1989.

Gregory B. Enos, Burwell & Enos, Inc., Texas City, for appellant.

Jack R. Martin, Houston, for appellee.

GRANT, Justice.

Denney appeals a workers’ compensation case in which the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA).

Denney contends that the trial court erred in entering a take-nothing judgment and taxing costs against him, and in failing to award him $600.00 in past medical benefits and lifetime medical benefits based upon the jury’s findings.

The jury found that Denney was injured in the course and scope of his employment, but that he had no total or partial incapacity caused by the injury. The jury further found that Denney had incurred $600.00 in medical expense as a result of the on-the-job injury, but no mention of this finding is made in the judgment.

TEIA states that the parties stipulated that TEIA had paid past compensation and medical benefits. In the defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for new trial, TEIA states that there was a stipulation that any award for medical damages would be off-set by a $2,000.00 settlement from a third party. In his brief, Denney agrees that there was a stipulation but contends that no off-set amount was ever established.

No statement of facts has been filed. Rule 50(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure places the burden on the appellant to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal. In the absence of a record showing that the trial *413court improperly failed to grant the $600.00 in medical benefits, no error is shown.

Next, Denney complains about the trial court’s taxing court costs against him. Rule 131 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the successful party to a suit shall recover all costs incurred except where otherwise provided. The party in whose favor a take-nothing judgment is entered is the prevailing party. *Collerain v. City of Granbury,*760 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1988, no writ). Thus, the trial court did not err in taxing the court costs against Denney.

Next, we address Denney’s contention that he should have been awarded lifetime future medical benefits. No jury question was submitted on future medical benefits. Denney is entitled to the payment of future medical costs attributable to the on-the-job injury and may seek recovery of these benefits when they accrue. The Industrial Accident Board has continuing jurisdiction and may make an award for medical care furnished after the date of the original award or judgment. *Transport Insurance Company v. Polk,*400 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.1966).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10079-10080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4290]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5157-6]


Public Meeting of the Sanitary Sewer Overflows Dialogue

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) is convening a public meeting of the Sanitary Sewer 
Overflows (SSOs) dialogue on March 9 and 10, 1995. The meeting has 
several purposes: (1) to discuss goals, objectives and desired outcomes 
for the SSO policy dialogue, such as ensuring national consistency and 
adequate municipal investment in collection system operation and 
maintenance; (2) to report on information needs to support an 
evaluation of the costs and benefits of selected policy options as well 
as identify other information needs associated with developing other 
products; (3) to provide an overview of [[Page 10080]] the Agency's 
approach to enforcement; (4) to identify and discuss the 
appropriateness of nonregulatory and regulatory tools available for 
addressing reporting of SSOs, collection system evaluations, sewer 
design, collection system operation and maintenance, and system 
rehabilitation; and (5) to discuss how watershed concepts could be 
incorporated into SSO efforts. The meeting is open to the public 
without need for advance registration.

DATES: The Dialogue will be held on March 9 and 10, 1995. On the 9th, 
the meeting will begin at approximately 9 a.m. EST and run until about 
5 p.m. On the 10th, the meeting will run from about 9 a.m. until 
completion.

ADDRESSES: The Dialogue will be held at the Sheraton Suites Hotel, 801 
Asaph Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. The hotel telephone number is (703) 
836-4700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Weiss of EPA's Office of 
Wastewater Management, at (202) 260-9524.

    Dated: February 13, 1995.
Michael Cook,
Director Office of Wastewater Management, Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 95-4290 Filed 2-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 27, 2021

s0120

Order 

Clerk

January 27, 2021

161243

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161243

COA: 339020

Monroe CC: 16-243183-FH

SHANE JEREMY HAWKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 8, 2020, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals. 

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to 

appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the 

application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial defense 

counsel’s failure to object to Detective Boczar’s testimony, the outcome of this trial 

would have been different. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694 (1984). In 

addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to 

MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page 

numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief 

within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also 

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix 

filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of 

being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements 

of their application papers.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for 

permission to file briefs amicus curiae.