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

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 27, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-0213

Lower Tribunal No. 05-12895

________________

Torrance Kenneth Rogers,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Torrance Kenneth Rogers, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney

General, for respondent. 

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and LUCK, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Torrance Rogers petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition seeking to

dismiss a petition, filed below, for civil commitment of a sexually violent predator

(a “Ryce Act” petition). Rogers claims the trial court violated his rights under

section 394.916, Florida Statutes (2017), when it did not commence a jury trial
within thirty days of his request in open court. Because Rogers has an adequate

remedy below, we dismiss his petition for writ of prohibition as premature. See

Osborne v. State, 907 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 2005) (“[Defendant] moved to dismiss

the Ryce Act petition against him on the basis that the State failed to bring the case

to trial within the thirty days of the trial court's probable cause finding, as required

by section 394.916(1), Florida Statutes (1999).”); State v. Goode, 830 So. 2d 817,

819 (Fla. 2002) (“[W]hile [Defendant] was still being detained without

trial, defense counsel filed two additional motions to dismiss the proceedings, and .

. . a hearing on [Defendant’s] motions to dismiss was held before . . . the assigned

judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, [the judge] dismissed the proceedings on a

violation of the statutory provision requiring a final hearing to commence within

thirty days of the ex parte finding of probable cause.”).

Dismissed.

2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21815]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending September 5, 2008

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2008-0274.
    Date Filed: September 5, 2008.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 26, 2008.
    Description: Joint Application of TradeWinds Airlines, Inc. 
(``TW'') and Sky Lease I, Inc. (''Sky Lease'') requesting the 
Department transfer TW's certificates of public convenience and 
necessity (and certain other exemption authority) to Sky Lease.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2008-0277.
    Date Filed: September 4, 2008.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 25, 2008.
    Description: Application of TUIfly Nordic A.B. (``TUIfly'') 
requesting an exemption and an amended foreign air carrier permit 
authorizing TUIfly to conduct operations to and from the United States 
to the full extent authorized by the United States-European Union Air 
Transport Agreement (``U.S.-E.U. Agreement''), including authority to 
engage in: (i) Charter foreign air transportation of persons, property 
and mail from any point(s) behind any Member State(s) of the European 
Community via any point(s) in any Member State(s) and intermediate 
points to any point(s) in the United States and beyond; (ii) charter 
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any 
point(s) in the United States and any points(s) in any member of the 
European Common Aviation Area; (iii) charter foreign cargo air 
transportation between any point(s) in the United States and any other 
point(s); (iv) other charter pursuant to the prior approval 
requirements; and (v) transportation authorized by any additional route 
or other right(s) made available to European Community carrier in the 
future.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-21815 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7902

JOHN HERMAN PLATH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID BEASLEY, Governor; MICHAEL B. MOORE,

Director, Department of Corrections; SERGEANT

FOSTER; PRIS MACK, Deputy Warden; SERGEANT

JOHNSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-2985-6-3AK)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Herman Plath, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance

with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied,

454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case when Appellant failed

to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we

affirm the district court's orders. However, we modify the dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. We

deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and grant his

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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 AS MODIFIED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Simon Dawson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2022 of StemGen, Inc.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15-d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;

 

b. Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;

 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d. Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

----
Exhibit 4.13



 Exhibit 4.13 
  
 Schedule 
 Setting Forth Information on 
 Ten Additional and Substantially Identical Mortgages 
  
 (Except as set forth below, documents are substantially identical to the

 document included as Exhibit 4.12 of this filing, except for immaterial variations) 
  

						
	 Location

	  	 Title of Document

	  	Principal Sum of
Note


	 Greensboro, North Carolina
	  	Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing	  	$	4,875,000.00
	 Lubbock, Texas
	  	Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing	  	$	2,500,000.00
	 Clearwater/St. Petersburg, Florida
	  	Mortgage and Security Agreement	  	$	3,540,000.00
	 Irvine, California
	  	Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing	  	$	12,750,000.00
	 Arcadia, California
	  	Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing	  	$	14,850,000.00
	 Chicago-Deerfield, Illinois
	  	Mortgage and Security Agreement	  	$	8,100,000.00
	 Pensacola, Florida
	  	Mortgage and Security Agreement	  	$	3,540,000.00
	 Boca Raton, Florida
	  	Mortgage and Security Agreement	  	$	3,750,000.00
	 Columbia/Spartanburg, South Carolina
	  	Mortgage and Security Agreement	  	$	4,380,000.00
	 Philadelphia/Berwyn, Pennsylvania
	  	Open-End Mortgage and Security Agreement	  	$	5,979,000.00
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael J. Cole

v. No. 06-fp-234

Coos County Department of Corrections,

Acting Superintendent, et al.

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-234-SM. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: June 27, 2006

cc: Michael J. Cole, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00234-SM Document 4 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 1 of 1

Cole v. Coos County Department of Corrections, Acting Superintendent et al Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
#### Jessie STEPHENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally GRYDER; Richard L. Stalder, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-30330.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Jessie Stephens, Louisiana prisoner no. 94547, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and he argues that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice because he paid the full filing fee.

The district court determined that Stephens’ claim for reimbursement of unpaid incentive wages was frivolous because he failed to allege that the defendants intentionally deprived him of property and because Louisiana law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for his claim. We find no error in the district court’s determination. Because the complaint was frivolous, it was subject to dismissal regardless whether Stephens paid the fifing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This appeal is likewise frivolous, and we dismiss it as such. *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and our dismissal of this appeal count as “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Stephens that he now has two strikes under § 1915(g) and that, if he accumulates one more strike, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-3293-EM]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3293-EM), dated September 7, 2008, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 12, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective September 12, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-21976 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         585,176
<SECURITIES>                                   110,002
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,800,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,544,631
<INVENTORY>                                     46,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,094,692
<PP&E>                                         709,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                 430,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,403,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,040,738
<BONDS>                                        608,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,222
<COMMON>                                           726
<OTHER-SE>                                     754,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,403,154
<SALES>                                     10,008,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,008,641
<CGS>                                        8,677,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,677,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,597,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,192,337
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,506,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,506,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,506,806)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)


</TABLE>
[No. 34344.

Department One.

October 31, 1957.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*Lee B. Siglea, *Deceased.*Grace Siglea, *Appellant,*v. Elsie Sheckler, *Respondent.**1*

*Hawkins & Loy,*for appellant.

*Elery A. Van Diest*and *Paul Clair Edmondson,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 316 P. (2d) 1101.

*240Per Curiam.

Lack of testamentary capacity because of chronic alcoholism was the sole ground urged by Grace Siglea in contesting the will of her deceased brother, Lee B. Siglea. This appeal by Grace Siglea involves only the court’s factual determination that the testator had testamentary capacity.

The record establishes that the subscribing witnesses to the will testified that, at the time of the preparation and execution of the will, decedent had testamentary capacity, evidenced no alcoholic condition, and that, to their knowledge, he had never consumed intoxicants to excess. Several business associates corroborated the testimony of the subscribing witnesses with reference to the testator’s testamentary capacity and his use of intoxicants.

Opposed to this testimony was that of neighbors who had seen the testator when he appeared to them to be intoxicated, and who believed he lacked testamentary capacity. A doctor, who had attended the decedent for the first time fifteen days after the execution of the will, testified that, in his opinion, the decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and that the nature of decedent’s illness was such that he did not have testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will.

“One who contests a will has the burden of establishing its invalidity by evidence which is clear, cogent, and convincing.” *In re Youngkin’s Estate,*48 Wn. (2d) 432, 434, 294 P. (2d) 426 (1956).

The trial court weighed the evidence and concluded that the appellant had not met this burden of proof. Our reading of the record convinces us that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KEVIN RADIK, 

INDICTMENT 

18 U.S.C. § 1703(a) 

Defendant. 

The Grand Jury charges that 

COUNTI 

On or about December 1, 2022 through on or about March 16, 2023, in the District of 

Nebraska, the defendant, KEVIN RADIK, then being a Postal Service employee, did unlawfully 

secrete, destroy, detain, and delay any letter, postal card, package, bag, and mail entrusted to him 

and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, and carried and delivered by any carrier or other 

employee of the Postal Service, and forwarded through and delivered from any post office or 

station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or the Postal Service. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1703 ( a). 

A TRUE BILL. 

'----:FoREPERSON 0 

1 

8:23-cr-00114-RFR-MDN Doc # 1 Filed: 05/16/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 1
The United States of America requests that trial of this case be held in Omaha, Nebraska, 

pursuant to the rules of this Court. 

~~#25275 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

2 

8:23-cr-00114-RFR-MDN Doc # 1 Filed: 05/16/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 20, 2008, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, EADS North 
America Test & Services, Irvine, CA; DAQTron, Inc., Roswell, GA; and 
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. San Jose, CA have been added as 
parties to this venture. Also, Nextronic Engineering Corp., Taipei 
TAIWAN; and OpenSystems Publishing LLC, St. Clair Shores, MI have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 4, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 11, 2008 (73 FR 39987).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-21743 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M