alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDREW GEORGE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

.

No. 4D22

- 1394

[ May 25, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Jeffrey Dana Gillen , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502018CF005193

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman

, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

L EVINE

, F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


Summary of the 2005 Annual Cash Incentive
Bonus Program


 


The 2005 Annual Cash
Incentive Bonus Program (“2005 Program”) is applicable to key employees of Lone
Star and its operating companies, including Lone Star’s executive
officers.  Annual cash bonus targets as a
percentage of salary (ranging from 20% to 100%) were established for each
participant in the 2005 Program. 
Achievement by the participant’s employer of 100% of its 2005 targeted
ROIC (return on invested capital, which is earnings before income taxes divided
by total assets less non-interest bearing liabilities) would establish an
opportunity pool equal to 100% of the sum of all participants’ target bonus
amounts.  If the employer achieves less
than 80% of its 2005 targeted ROIC, any cash bonuses would be payable to its
employee-participants only from a pool based on individual achievement, the
total amount of which is 20% of the opportunity pool.  If the employer achieves more than 100% of
its 2005 targeted ROIC, the opportunity pool would be increased proportionally
(up to a maximum of 200% of the sum of the participants’ target bonus amounts.)


 


The Committee, in its
sole discretion, administers the 2005 Program and selects the key employees and
executive officers who participate in the 2005 Program.  The Committee reserves the right to modify
the awards and the terms of the 2005 Program, and final awards are determined
by the Committee in its discretion.  The
Committee also considers achievement of individual objectives in deciding on
the amount of any bonus for a participant.


 


The Committee’s approval
of the terms of the 2005 Program shall not be deemed to create an enforceable
agreement between Lone Star or any of its subsidiaries and any employee, and
the Committee retains the right to reduce or refuse to authorize any awards
under the 2005 Program, regardless of the attainment of any Program
objectives.  No right to any award shall
be deemed to exist unless and until the Committee authorizes payment of awards
under the 2005 Program following the completion of the 2005 fiscal year.
175 La. 813

#### Succession of SULLIVAN.

No. 31989.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 31, 1932.

See, also, 173 La. 647, 138 So. 431; (La. App.) 142 So. 619.

Shelby Taylor and A. B. Parker, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

W. A. Benton and Fred G. Benton, both of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

O’NIELL, C. J.

W. P. Sullivan, administrator of the succession of Miss Susan Sullivan, deceased, has appealed from a judgment probating what purports to be the last will of the deceased and confirming the appointment of the executrix named in the will. The instrument was discovered and offered for probate after the administrator had been appointed and had qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties. He and the other heirs of the deceased opposed the application for the probate of the instrument as the will of the deceased, contending that it was a forgery, and not in legal form. The heirs at law are many collateral relations, of whom the administrator is one.

The party named as universal legatee and executrix in the will has moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the administrator has no authority to represent the heirs and that he did not prove or offer to prove that there were creditors of the succession.

The question whether the succession owed debts, requiring the appointment of an administrator, was foreclosed by the judgment or order appointing him, after due publication of the notice of his application to be. appointed. The reports, are full of decisions to the effect that an administrator’s letters of administration are prima facie evidence of his authority, and of the validity and regularity of his appointment which cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding. The same rule applies to an executor. Succession of Robertson, 49 La. Ann. 80, 21 So. 197. Where the heirs have not accepted the succession, an administrator may stand in judgment as the representative of all parties having an interest in the succession, and may appeal from an adverse judgment for the protection of the heirs as well as of the creditors of the succession. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Tibbs, 112 La. 51, 36 So. 223.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BARRINGTON ISAACS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-98-356, CA-01-2230-2-18)

Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: September 26, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barrington Isaacs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Barrington Isaacs appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and

denying his motion for reconsideration. Although we initially

dismissed this appeal on the ground that Isaacs failed to meet the

standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability, we

granted Isaacs’s rehearing petition and have now considered the

appeal on the merits. Based on our review of the record, however,

we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See United States v. Isaacs, Nos.

CR-98-356; CA-01-2230-2-18 (D.S.C. filed July 8, 2002 & entered

July 11, 2002; filed Sept. 3, 2002 & entered Sept. 5, 2002); see

also Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)

(declining to consider claim raised for the first time on appeal).

We deny Isaacs’s motion for judicial notice. 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.

AFFIRMED
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51269 Summary Calendar RUBEN JAMES GONZALEZ Plaintiff-Appellant

v. JUPITER COMMUNITIES LLC Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CV-940
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ruben James Gonzalez is appealing the district court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s order granting the defendant Jupiter Communities, L.L.C. (Jupiter) summary judgment and dismissing his complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Gonzalez is effectively challenging the district court's certification that he should
not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).No. 06-51269

2 Jupiter presented summary judgment evidence that Gonzalez was terminated because he was not performing his job in a satisfactory manner. Gonzalez did not rebut that evidence. Nor did he show that he was treated differently from similarly situated emplo yees. Other than his conclusional assertions, G onzalez has not provided any evidence that he was terminated based on his gender. Thus, Gonzalez did not satisfy his burden of showing that
a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Jupiter intentionally discriminated against him based on his sex. L ongfield v. Eastfield College , 88 F.3d 300. 304 (5th Cir. 1996). Because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and Jupiter was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district court’s determination that Gonzalez’s appeal was not taken in good faith was correct. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because Gonzalez has failed to show that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Gonzalez’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
SHIRLEY JENKINS, AS TAX COLLECTOR FOR GULF COUNTY, FLORIDA

, Appellant,

v.

TAUNTON TRUSS, INC. ET AL.

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3244

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 21, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Co urt for Gulf County

. John L. Fishel, II , Judge

. Timothy R. Qualls and John David Holt of Young vanAssenderp, P.A., Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Kevin W. Cox and James M. Ervin, Jr. of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS

, ROWE

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 10.23c

  Amendment to 1991 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
                                   as amended

The Plan is amended by replacing clause  5.3(b)(iii) with a new clause (iii) and
adding a new clause (iv), as follows:

(iii) If authorized by the Committee,  by a "net exercise" via the forfeiture to
the Company of a portion of the Option  pertaining  to shares with a fair market
value equal to the exercise  price of the portion of the Option being  exercised
plus the applicable tax withholding amount;

(iv) Any combination of the consideration  provided in the foregoing subsections
(i) and (ii) (and, if authorized by the Committee, subsection (iii)); and
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         139,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  872,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,773,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,024,389
<PP&E>                                       7,691,484
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,255,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,961,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,197,489
<BONDS>                                        530,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,333
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,574,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,961,985
<SALES>                                      2,246,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,246,642
<CGS>                                        1,839,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,839,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,116,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (718,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (194,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (524,464)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (524,464)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6931 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to modify 

the boundary of, and reauthorize, the Baltimore National Heritage Area, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2022 

Mr. MFUME (for himself, Mr. SARBANES, and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 to modify the boundary of, and reauthorize, the 

Baltimore National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Baltimore National 

5 Heritage Area Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION AND REAUTHORIZATION 

7 OF BALTIMORE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

8 (a) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6931 IH

1 (1) MAP.—Section 8005(a)(4) of the Omnibus 

2 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 

3 320101 note; Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1247) 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘entitled’’ and all that fol5 lows through the period at the end and inserting 

6 ‘‘entitled ‘Baltimore National Heritage Area Pro7 posed Boundary’, numbered T10/179,623, and dated 

8 February 2022.’’. 

9 (2) BOUNDARIES.—Section 8005(b)(2)(A) of 

10 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 

11 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 111–11; 123 

12 Stat. 1247) is amended by striking ‘‘October 2001’’ 

13 and all that follows through the period at the end 

14 and inserting ‘‘July 2020.’’. 

15 (b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 8005(i) of the Om16 nibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 

17 320101 note; Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1253) is 

18 amended by striking ‘‘the date that is 15 years after the 

19 date of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘March 30, 

20 2036’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
   FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF PORTSMOUTH 
   SQUARE, INC. SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY
   PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
   REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-QSB REPORT.
<CIK> 0000079661
<NAME> PORTSMOUTH SQUARE, INC.
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           75850
<SECURITIES>                                    868197
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1072069
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3386629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           179428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       2092300
<OTHER-SE>                                     1114901
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3386629
<SALES>                                        2235406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2085696
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                426789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1658898
<INCOME-TAX>                                    668839
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             990059
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    990059
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
        







</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISIDRO F. DELUNA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-16610

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02491-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 11, 2011** 

Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Isidro F. DeLuna appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss.

DeLuna contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2005 decision to deny him

parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due

FILED

AUG 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-16610

process rights. After the briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. 

See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now

the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue when there is a

liberty interest in parole is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process

the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. See

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Because DeLuna

raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA may not issue

on this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Further, because DeLuna has not made a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right on his other claims, we also decline to certify those claims. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Because there is no COA, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                 2,240,428
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (432)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,612,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,445
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                     522,866
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,612,331
<SALES>                                         16,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,818
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------

                     AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment dated March 3, 2005 (the "Amendment") to the Employment Agreement
originally dated May 1, 1999 (the "Agreement") and previously amended on June 7,
2004 by and between iVoice, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, successor in
interest to iVoice.com, Inc., f/k/a International Voice Technologies Corp., a
Delaware corporation, with offices at 750 Route 34, Matawan, New Jersey 07747
(the "Company") and Jerome Mahoney, an individual residing at
******************** (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive mutually wish to amend the
Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

The terms and conditions as set forth below shall amend the Employment Agreement

1. DUTIES. The Executive agrees that the Executive will serve the Company to the
best of his ability as the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer if no other individual shall serve in this
position, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, subject to the general
supervision of the Board of Directors of the Company. The Executive further
agrees to serve as a director of the Company and/or of any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of the Company, if the Executive is elected to such directorship. The
Executive and the Company acknowledge that the Executive may serve as an officer
and/or director of other entities, so long as these other activities do not
interfere with the performance of his obligations under this Agreement and these
other business entities do not compete with the business of the Company.

Upon the Date of Termination, the Executive shall resign as an officer and
director of the Company and any of its subsidiaries.

All of other terms of this Agreement shall remain if full force and effect and
shall remain unchanged.


<PAGE>



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date written below:

IVOICE, INC.



By:___________________________ Dated:______________________



Title:__________________________


JEROME MAHONEY



By:___________________________ Dated:______________________