alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 3

- 2427

_____________________________ D.E.T., Father of G.A.T., a Minor Child

,
Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. Steven C. Warrick , Judge

.

February 20, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

D ISMISSED

. N.S.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs. , 843 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2003) (approving procedure that includes dismissal when, after counsel withdraws, the appellant fails to timely file his or her own brief in support of appeal of termination of parental rights)

.

K ELSEY , W INOKUR , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

D.E.T.

, pro se, Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee

, for Appellee ; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Caitlin E. Burke, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem.
SCWC-13-0000030

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTHONY R. VILLENA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000030; CASE NO. 1DTA-12-01321)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Anthony R. Villena’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on August 15, 2015, is

hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding

scheduling. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 30, 2015.

Phyllis J. Hironaka

for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000030

30-SEP-2015

01:15 PM
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60087 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MAXINE MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:96-CV-117PS

- - - - - - - - - - April 28, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Maxine Moody, federal prison # 03620-043, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. She argues that 1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel, 2) the sentencing court erred by refusing to grant the Government’s motion for a downward departure, and 3) the Government breached the plea agreement when it did not object to the sentencing court’s refusal to grant the motion for aNo. 97-60087 -2- downward departure and when it did not resubmit the motion within a year of the judgment of Moody’s sentence. Moody’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are unsupported by the record, and she failed to establish that her attorney’s performance was deficient or how she was prejudiced by

her attorney’s conduct. S ee Strickland v . Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Her claim that the Government breached the plea agreement is refuted by the record and without merit. Moody’s argument t hat the district court improperly applied

the Sentencing Guidelines and refused to grant the motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 does not give rise to a constitutional issue cognizable in a § 2255 pro ceeding. U nited States v. Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1994). Moody’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
(No. 24296.

#### The People *ex rel,*Arthur L. Farwell, Appellant, *vs.*Edward J. Kelly, Mayor, *et al.*Appellees.

*Opinion filed December 17, 1937*

Rehearing *denied Feb. 2, 1938.*

Aaron SoblE, (Max Chill, of counsel,) for appellant.

Barnet Hodes, Corporation Counsel, (Joseph F. Gross-man, and J. Herzl Segal, of counsel,) for appellees.

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court:

This cause comes by appeal from the superior court of Cook county. There came with it the case of People *ex rel.*John V. Far well against these same respondents, (No. 24297.) At an earlier date this court, by agreement of the parties, dismissed the last mentioned case. This appeal now pends on the one record in No. 24296. The subject matter of the lawsuit is a petition for *mandamus*to compel the city to pay four certain judgments owned by the petitioner, as assignee. These judgments all arise out of personal injuries and were all assigned by the original holders to the petitioner.

The questions involved in this appeal are the same as those arising in *People*v. *Kelly, (ante,*p. 616.) The only substantial difference in the facts is that in that case the judgment was for damages to property, while in this case the judgments are each for personal injuries. In this case, as in the other, appellees moved to transfer the cause to the Appellate Court on the ground that the validity of a statute is not involved. That motion here, as there, bore *632also the concession of the appellees that appellant is not, by proper construction of the Judgment Tax Fund act, confined to the judgment tax fund for payment of his judgment. What was stated in the opinion in *People*v. *Kelly, supra,*is decisive of the questions in the case before us, and, for reasons there stated, the judgment of the superior court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to issue the writ of *mandamus*as prayed.

*Reversed and remanded, with directions.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40787

Summary Calendar

 

W. HAROLD SELLERS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

E.V. CHANDLER, Warden, Custodian of Mr. Sellers,

United States Bureau of Prisons, Federal Prison

Camp, Beaumont, Texas; RONALD G. THOMPSON, South

Central Regional Administrator, United States

Bureau of Prisons,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CV-177

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

July 30, 2002

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

W. Harold Sellers appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 petition. He argues that the district court erred in

determining that his challenge to the indictment in light of

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 20 (1999), did not meet the
No. 01-40787

-2-

criteria for bringing a claim pursuant to the “savings clause” of

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

“[T]he savings clause of § 2255 applies to a claim (i) that

is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision

which established that the petitioner may have been convicted of

a nonexistent offense and (ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law

at the time when the claim should have been raised in the

petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.”

Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.

2001).

We pretermit the issue whether Neder is retroactively

applicable to cases on collateral review, because Sellers cannot

show that his challenge to the indictment was foreclosed at the

time of his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. As this court

previously noted, Sellers had ample opportunity to raise this

claim prior the denial of that motion. He therefore has not

shown that the district court erred in dismissing his petition,

and the judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2526

___________

Great West Casualty Company; *

International Business & *

Mercantile Reassurance Company, *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of South Dakota.

*

Travelers Indemnity Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 12, 1997

 Filed: April 4, 1997

___________

Before MAGILL, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

First American Systems, Inc. (“FAS”), an independent insurance agency

doing business in South Dakota, served as general agent for the parties to

this action, plaintiffs Great West Casualty Company and its affiliate

(collectively “Great West”), and defendant Travelers Indemnity Company

(“Travelers”). Travelers was also FAS’s major secured creditor. FAS went

into bankruptcy owing both Great West and Travelers substantial unremitted

insurance premiums. Great West sued Travelers, alleging that Travelers’

actions as FAS’s dominant secured creditor caused Great West’s losses in

the FAS bankruptcy, making Travelers liable to Great West for conversion,

tortious interference with contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary

duty.
The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, Chief Judge of the United 1

States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

Applying South Dakota law, the district court granted summary

1

judgment in favor of Travelers, concluding (i) that Travelers did not have

the degree of actual, total control over FAS needed to make Travelers

liable for the debts of FAS; (ii) that Travelers is not liable in

conversion because it did not exercise dominion and control over FAS’s

disbursement of insurance premiums to insurers such as Great West; (iii)

that Travelers’ actions as secured creditor did not tortiously interfere

with FAS’s disbursement of insurance premiums to Great West; and (iv) that

Great West’s negligence and fiduciary duty claims fail for lack of evidence

that Travelers breached such duties.

On appeal, Great West argues that the district court erred in its

application and interpretation of the South Dakota law of tortious

interference and conversion, and that a genuine issue of material fact

exists as to whether Travelers exercised actual control over the failing

FAS. Having carefully considered the record and reviewed the grant of

summary judgment de novo, we conclude that the district court correctly

applied South Dakota law to the facts of this case viewed in the light most

favorable to Great West. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in

the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 9, 1996. See 8th Cir.

Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
 Jurisdiction ofName
    
    IncorporationApril Corporation
    
    ColoradoArden Park Ventures, LLC
    
    FloridaBeazer Allied Companies Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareBeazer Clarksburg, LLC
    
    MarylandBeazer Commercial Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawareBeazer General Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Corp.
    
    TennesseeBeazer Homes Holdings Corp.
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Indiana, LLP
    
    IndianaBeazer Homes Indiana Holding Corp.
    
    IndianaBeazer Homes Investments, LLC
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Michigan, LLC
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Sales, Inc.
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Texas Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareBeazer Homes Texas, LP
    
    TexasBeazer Mortgage Corporation
    
    DelawareBeazer Realty Corp.
    
    GeorgiaBeazer Realty, Inc.
    
    New JerseyBeazer Realty Los Angeles, Inc.
    
    DelawareBeazer Realty Sacramento, Inc.
    
    DelawareBeazer Realty Services, LLC
    
    DelawareBeazer SPE, LLC
    
    GeorgiaBeazer/Squires Realty, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaBH Building Products, LP
    
    DelawareBH Procurement Services, LLC
    
    DelawareDove Barrington Development LLC
    
    DelawareHomebuilders Title Services of Virginia, Inc.
    
    VirginiaHomebuilders Title Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareParagon Title, LLC
    
    IndianaSecurity Title Insurance Company
    
    VermontTexas Lone Star Title, LP
    
    TexasThe Ridings Development LLC
    
    DelawareTrinity Homes, LLC
    
    IndianaUnited Home Insurance Company, A Risk Retention Group
    
    Vermont
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


DENISON INTERNATIONAL PLC
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

o        Denison International plc (UK)

         o   Denison Holdings Limited (UK)
         o   Denison Financial Holdings Limited (UK)

             o   Denison Hydraulics U.K. Limited

             o   Denison Hydraulik Svenska Ab (Sweden)

             o   Denison Hydraulik Danmark AS (Denmark)

             o   Merifire Oy (Finland)

                 o  Denison Lokomec Oy (Finland)

             o   Denison Hydraulics Benelux B.V. (Holland)

             o   European Distribution Centre Denison B.V. (Holland)

             o   Denison Hydraulik GmbH (Germany)

             o   Denison Hydraulics France S.A.

             o   Denison Hydraulics S.A. (Spain)

             o   Denison Hydraulics Italy S.r.l.

             o   Denison Hydraulics Inc. (Japan)

             o   Denison Hydraulics Limited (Hong Kong)

                 o    Shanghai Denison Hydraulics ENGG. Ltd.

             o   Denison Hydraulics SEA Pte Limited (Singapore)

             o   Denison Hydraulics (Proprietary) Limited (Australia)

             o   Denison Hydraulics Canada Incorporated

             o   Denison Hydraulics Inc. (USA)

                 o   Denison Hydraulics FSC, Inc. (Barbados)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40514

Summary Calendar

 

JERRY EARL WHITE, also known as Jerry Earl Grice

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BILLY GARCIA, MR REYNA

Defendants - Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CV-137

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Earl White, also known as Jerry Earl Grice, appeals

the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants dismissing

his civil-rights complaint alleging Fourth Amendment violations. 

White argues that the transcript of the trial held in state court

shows that the defendants’ averments that he was arrested for

state-law violations before he was searched are lies. He also

argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint

without considering his response to the summary-judgment motion. 
No. 04-40514

-2-

The defendants’ affidavits averred that White had been

stopped and arrested for traffic violations before the search

incident to the arrest revealed the cocaine. The affidavits

submitted by the defendants met their burden as the moving party

of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact. 

See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996); Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Gustafson v. Florida,

414 U.S. 260, 266 (1973); United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564,

573 (5th Cir. 1997). White’s response to the summary-judgment

motion did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding

summary judgment because he did not dispute that the defendants

had pulled him over for a valid traffic stop, nor did it dispute

the fact that the defendants had probable cause to arrest him for

the traffic violations. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d

1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Therefore, the district

court was correct in granting the summary judgment motion.

Although in granting the summary-judgment motion, the

district court initially overlooked White’s response, after

White’s motion for relief from judgment, the district court

considered White’s response and appropriately concluded that

White had not carried his burden to defeat the summary-judgment

motion. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 033-95702, 033-97542, 333-02828,333-02892, 333-20245, 333-24493, 333-30328, 333-40185and 333-123434 of Protection One, Inc. on Form S-8, andin Registration Statement No. 333-50383 of Protection One, Inc.and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. on Form S-3, of ourreport dated March 15, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the Company’s ability tocontinue as a going concern and to a subsequent event), relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Protection One, Inc.,appearing in this Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ProtectionOne, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2004.

 
| /s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |
|                                |
| Kansas  City, Missouri              |
| March 24,  2005                |

 

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 11 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES CHRISTOPHER ASHFORD, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GARY GIBSON,

Respondent - Appellee. No. 01-5156 (D.C. No. 99-CV-785-B) (N.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Charles Ashford, a state prisoner convicted of one count of sexual assault on a child, seeks a certificate of appealability (C OA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. To obtain a COA, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” **See** 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Ashford challenges several evidentiary rulings made by the state trial court. In light of the governing legal standard, this court has reviewed his request for a COA, his appellate brief, and the district court’ s order; it has also read the transcript from his trial. Based on that review, and for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order of Septem ber 4, 2001, we are convinced Ashford’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of furth er proceedings, debatable among jurists of reason, or subject to different re solution on appeal. His request for a COA is DENIED. This appeal is accordingly DI SMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.29
AVANTOR, INC.
NONQUALIFED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
December 31, 2019
		
	Re:
	Avantor, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan


Amendment to Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement
Dear Bjorn Hofman:
Avantor, Inc. (“Company”) is pleased to advise you that certain of the terms of the options granted to you as of September 30, 2016 (the “Grant”), under the Avantor, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) are hereby amended by this letter agreement (this “Agreement”). Unless otherwise expressly set forth herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning given in your Grant.
1.Amendments.
(a)    Section 6.2 of the Grant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as provided below:
“Section 6.2.    Post-Termination Exercise Period. In the event of the Participant’s Termination, the Vested Portion shall remain exercisable until the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Date of Grant.”
2.    Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement shall not by implication or otherwise limit, impair, constitute a waiver of, or otherwise affect, the rights and remedies of the parties under the Grant, and shall not alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Grant, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect. This Agreement shall apply and be effective only with respect to the provisions of the Grant specifically referred to herein.
3.    Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
4.    Descriptive Headings. The descriptive headings of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and do not constitute a part of this Agreement.
5.    Governing Law. All questions concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to the choice of law principles thereof.
*     *     *     *











Please execute the extra copy of this Agreement in the space below and return it to the General Counsel of the Company at its executive offices to confirm your understanding and acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The effectiveness of this Agreement is conditioned upon your execution, delivery, and non-revocation of a general release on or around your last day of employment in the form of Annex 2 to the Employment Agreement you signed on or about November 12, 2017.
	
				
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 

	AVANTOR, INC.

	 

	By:
	/s/ Justin M. Miller

	 
	Name:
	Justin M. Miller

	Title:
	EVP & General Counsel




Enclosures: Copy of your Grant
The undersigned hereby acknowledges having read this Agreement and the Plan and hereby agrees to be bound by all provisions set forth herein and in the Plan.
Dated as of:
	
			
	December 31, 2019
	/s/ Bjorn Hofman

	Participant’s Signature
----

----

| (1) | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d); 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/Robert T. Strong                   |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  | May 14, 2010 | By:    | Robert T. Strong                      |
|   |         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |         |   |                                  |   |
|   |         |   |                                  |   |
| Date:  | May 14, 2010 | By:    | /s/John J. Augustine                  |   |
|   |         |   | John J. Augustine                     |
|   |         |   | Chief Financial Officer               |