alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1281

____________ NORBERTO PIETRI, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 2, 2018]

PER CURIAM.
We have for review Norberto Pietri’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Pietri’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Pietri’s motion sought relief p ursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in
Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Pietri’s appeal pend ing the disposition of Hitchcock v.
State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) . After this- 2

-

Court decided Hitchcock , Pietri responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this ca se. After reviewing Pietri’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Pietri is not entitled to relief. Pietri was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four. Pietri v. State , 644 So. 2d 1347, 1349 (Fla. 1994). Pietri’s sentence
of death became final in 1995

. Pietri v. Florida , 515 U.S. 1147 (1995). Thus,
Hurst d oes not apply retroactively to Pietri’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Pietri’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Pietri , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
v. St ate , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, John S. Kastren akes , Judge

- Case No. 501988CF011366AXXXMB- 3

-

Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, William M. Hennis, III, Litigation Director, an d Marta Jaszczolt , Staff Attorney, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Leslie T. Campbell , Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach , Florida, for Appellee
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 12823
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 12824
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 12825
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 12826
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 12827
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 12828
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 12829
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-2 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 12830
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KUMAL BURTON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10893

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE MARIANNE O. BATTANI

SAVITHRI KAKANI and MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

ANIL PRASAD,

Defendants.

________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S

IMPERMISSIBLE SUR-REPLY (DOCKET NO. 59)

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Impermissible Surreply filed by Defendants Anil Prasad and Savithri Kakani. (Docket no. 59). Plaintiff has filed a

response. (Docket no. 60). This matter has been referred for all pretrial matters. (Docket no. 7). 

The Court dispenses with oral argument on this motion pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). 

Defendants’ motion is now ready for ruling.

This is a civil rights action filed by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state

law. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 31, 2010 in accordance with the

Court’s Amended Scheduling Order. (Docket no. 52). Plaintiff filed a response on September 16,

2010. (Docket no. 55). Defendants filed a reply on September 30, 2010. (Docket no. 56). On

October 13, 2010 Plaintiff filed a sur-reply with attached exhibits. (Docket number 57). Defendants

now move for an Order striking Plaintiff’s impermissible sur-reply. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

The local rules permit a party to file a single reply brief within fourteen days after service

1

2:09-cv-10893-MOB-MKM Doc # 61 Filed 03/30/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 522
of the response. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. The exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s sur-reply are already part

of the medical record filed under seal at docket number 54 and do not constitute new evidence. The

Court will strike Plaintiff’s reply brief entitled “Plaintiff, Kumal Burton, Reply To Defendants

Response To Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Pursuant To

F.R.C.P. 56 and/or Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) Filed September 30, 2010 By

Defendants.” (Docket no. 57).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Anil Prasad and Savithri Kakani’s

Motion To Strike Plaintiff’s Impermissible Sur-reply (docket no. 59) is GRANTED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days

from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be

permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: March 30, 2011 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Kumal Burton and Counsel of

Record on this date.

Dated: March 30, 2011 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

2

2:09-cv-10893-MOB-MKM Doc # 61 Filed 03/30/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 523
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Herb Adams, Chief Executive 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:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 18th day of November, 2008.                                                                                                               
|   

HERB ADAMS
Herb AdamsChief Executive Officer





















---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008 of Targa Resources, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jeffrey J. McParland, as Chief Financial Officer of Targa
Resources, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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.

Date: November 12, 2008



|       |  |                                                                                                            
|------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/    JEFFREY J.
MCPARLAND                                                                                
|Name:  |  | Jeffrey J. McParland                                                                                       
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Targa Resources, Inc. (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 2, 2020

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 1373 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- 12149

________________ 

### Oscar Tuoza, et al. , Appellant s ,

vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corporation , Ap pellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Spencer Eig , Judge. Shield Law Group of Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez (Davie) , for appellant s
. Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and LOBREE , JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM. We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal without prejudice as one2 taken from a non

- final, non

- appealable order. See Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc. , 934 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“We have long adhered to the rule that piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.”); S.L.T. Warehouse
Co. v. Webb , 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) (“Generally, the test employed by the appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly af fected.”).
A ppeal dismissed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Criminal Case No. 09-cr-20349

Civil Case No. 13-cv-11094

VALENTINE BALOGUN,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

NOTICE AND ORDER FOR RESPONSE

The Defendant has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 

28 § USC 2255 on March 11, 2013.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is to file a response and

brief to the “Motion to vacate, ...” by May 24, 2013. The reply, if any, is to be filed by

June 24, 2013. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 12, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel and pro se

parties of record on this date, April 12, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4136

To provide for a reduced rate of postage for certain mailings that, under

Federal or State law, are required to be made by local governments.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Mr. MCINTOSH (for himself, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. GOODLATTE, and Mr. DAVIS)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To provide for a reduced rate of postage for certain mailings

that, under Federal or State law, are required to be

made by local governments.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCED RATE OF POSTAGE.

4 The United States Postal Service shall establish a

5 discount presort first-class postage rate for specified local

6 governmental mailings—

7 (1) that are mandated by Federal or State law,

8 such as property tax statements, summonses, and

9 jury-duty pay; but
2

•HR 4136 IH

1 (2) for which no Federal or State funds are

2 provided to local governments to defray the associ3 ated administrative costs.

Æ
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, CIVIL CASE NO. 09-13078

v. PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DPH-DAS LLC f/d/a/ DELPHI

AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LLC,

Defendant/Counter Plaintiff

MARIAN, INC.,

Defendant

DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Counter Plaintiff

______________________________

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL CASE NO. 09-14303

METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant

______________________________________/

ORDER

REQUESTING SPECIAL MASTER JAY G. TAYLOR TO RESPOND 

TO THE PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIAL MASTER’S CLAIMS

CONSTRUCTION REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2011

On September 12, 2011, Special Master Jay G. Taylor submitted his Claims Construction

Report, providing the Court with his recommendations regarding the disputed terms in U.S.

Patent No. 5,975,568 (The 0568 Patent). Thereafter, the parties submitted Objections to the

Special Master’s Report.

2:09-cv-13078-PDB-MKM Doc # 137 Filed 12/16/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5267
2

The Court requests that Special Master Jay G. Taylor provide the Court with responses to

the parties’ Objections on or before January 31, 2012. Upon the filing of the Special Master’s

Response, the parties will have 14 days to respond to his response to their objections.

SO ORDERED.

 S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 16, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or

pro se parties on this date, December 16, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner For Denise Goodine 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13078-PDB-MKM Doc # 137 Filed 12/16/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5268
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0319. MATTHEW ROBERT KRASKEY v. THE STATE.

Following a bench trial, the Dooly County Probate Court convicted Matthew

Kraskey of violating the Spencer Pass Law, OCGA § 40-6-16, a misdemeanor traffic

offense. Kraskey then filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals from probate court convictions for misdemeanor traffic offenses lie

in the superior court, not in this Court. See OCGA §§ 40-13-21 (a) & (b); 40-13-28;

State v. Rigdon, 284 Ga. App. 785, 785, n. 1 (645 SE2d 17) (2007); Power v. State,

231 Ga. App. 335, 335-336 (499 SE2d 356) (1998). Under Court of Appeals Rule

11 (b), “[w]hen an appeal or application filed in this Court is within the jurisdiction

of another court, it shall be transferred by order to that court.” Consequently, this

appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Dooly County Superior Court for

disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 06, 2017

10/06/2017
Exhibit 31.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. McKelvey, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skyview
Holdings Corp.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statements 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;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

            (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and

      5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonable likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


Dated:  August 10, 2007               By:   /s/ Donald R. McKelvey
        ---------------                     ----------------------
                                            Donald R. McKelvey
                                            Principal Financial Officer
FIRST AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYEE AND DIRECTOR


INCENTIVE RESTRICTED SHARE PLAN OF


AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HEALTHCARE TRUST,
INC.


 


WHEREAS, American Realty Capital Healthcare
Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Employee and Director Incentive Restricted Share Plan of American
Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 of the
Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may at any time amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend
the Plan as set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section
9 of the Plan, effective as of March 30, 2014, the first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:


 


“The total number of Shares that may be issued
under Awards shall not exceed 10.0% of the Company’s outstanding Shares on a fully diluted basis at any time.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has approved
the amendment to the Plan as set forth herein and authorized the undersigned officer of the Company to execute this amendment and
the undersigned has caused this amendment to be executed this 30th day of March, 2014.


 


	 	AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL HEALTHCARE TRUST, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Thomas P. D’Arcy




	 	 	Name: Thomas P. D’Arcy
	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-11 Filed 09/21/10 Page 8 of 8
Exhibit 4.17

 

Addendum No. 2

to Facility Agreement No. RK/038/11 dated July 24th, 2012

 

	
City of Moscow
    	
 
    	
August 9th,   2013
    


 

The Joint-Stock Commercial Bank “ROSBANK” (Open Joint-Stock Company), hereinafter referred to as the “Lender”, as represented by Igor Stanislavovich Antonov, Acting Chairman of the Board of Management, acting under the Articles of Association and Decision of the Board of Directors dated May 27, 2013 (Minutes No. 28), as one party, and Mobile TeleSystems Open Joint-Stock Company, hereinafter referred to as the “Borrower”, as represented by Alexey Valeryevich Kornya, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, acting under the Power of Attorney No. 0152/13 dated June 04, 2013, as the other party, hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”, have executed this Addendum to Credit Agreement No. RK/038/11 dated July 24th, 2012 (hereinafter, the “Agreement”) as follows:

 

1.                            Paragraph 3 Clause 1.1 Article 1 of the Agreement to be re-stated to read as follows:

“The Bank margin makes up 0.75 (Zero point seventy five) per cent per annum.”

2.                            All other terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

3.                            The Borrower both states and assures to the Lender that upon the execution hereof by the Borrower, there is no third-party interest in the transaction within the meaning of Article 81 of the Federal Law “On Joint Stock Companies”.

4.                            The Borrower acknowledges that no amendments have been introduced to its founding documents since July 10, 2013.

5.                            The Borrower further acknowledges that the transaction amount as at the date hereof does not exceed 25% of the book value of the Borrower’s assets and does not exceed USD 100,000,000.00 (one hundred million dollars).

6.                            This Addendum is to be considered an integral part of the Agreement, and is to be drawn up in two copies, one for each Party.

 

 

Signatures:

 

	
By the Lender  
    	
 
    	
By the Borrower  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/Signature/  
    	
 
    	
/Signature/  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Chief Accountant  
    	
 
    	
Chief Accountant  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/Signature/  
    	
 
    	
/Signature/  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:  
    	
 
    	
Official seal:  
    
	
MOSCOW  
    	
 
    	
MOSCOW  
    
	
OPEN JOINT-STOCK COMPANY  
    	
 
    	
Mobile TeleSystems Open Joint-Stock Company  
    
	
Joint-Stock Commercial Bank   “ROSBANK”  
    	
 
    	
PSRN 1027700149124  
    
	
S.R. No. 36487
    	
 
    	
MTS