alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF BREVARD, Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 4, 1955.

Murray W. Overstreet, Kissimmee, for appellant.

Noah B. Butt, Cocoa, for appellee.

ROBERTS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree validating General Obligation and Revenue Bonds of the County of Brevard proposed to be issued under the authority of Chapter 28926, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1953, for the purpose of four-laning State Road No. 5 (U. S. Highway’No. 1) under a lease-purchase agreement with the State Road Department.

The circumstances with respect to the statutory authority, method of financing, and contingent obligation of the County’s taxing power, are identical to those with which we were concerned in State of Florida v. County of Flagler, Fla., *77*So.2d 765, and the proposed bond issue has also been approved by the freeholders of the County. The facts of the instant case differ only as to the amounts of the proposed bond issue, the funds estimated to be available in the 80 percent surplus gas tax fund for the debt service requirements, and the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the County — the ratios of which are more favorable on the side of the validity of the bonds than in the Flagler County case.

Accordingly, the decree appealed from’is affirmed under the authority of State of Florida v. County of Flagler.

MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of TBC Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence C. Day,
President and 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.




August 26, 2005                        By  /s/ Lawrence C. Day
---------------                            ----------------------
                                           Lawrence C. Day
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Radyne ComStream Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Radyne ComStream Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-23159)
filed as of March 12, 1997, Form S-8 (File No. 333-67469) filed as of
November 19, 1998 and amended as of May 5, 1999, Form S-8 (File No.
333-90383) filed as of November 5, 1999 and Form S-8 (file No.
333-41704) filed as of July 19, 2000, of our report dated March 7,
2003, on the consolidated balance sheets of Radyne ComStream Inc. as
of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss)
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Radyne ComStream Inc.

As discussed in Note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted the provisions
of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets which changed the
Companys method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible
assets effective January 1, 2002.

/s/ KPMG LLP
 
Phoenix, Arizona
March 31, 2003
1 “[#18]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02363-REB-CBS

ANTHONY BARNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice

[#18]1 filed December 15, 2011. After reviewing the stipulation and the file, I conclude

that the stipulation should be approved and that this action should be dismissed with

prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice [#18] filed December 15,

2011, is APPROVED;

2. That the Trial Preparation Conference set for September 28, 2012, is

VACATED;

3. That the jury trial set to commence October 15, 2012, is VACATED; and

Case 1:11-cv-02363-REB-CBS Document 19 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

4. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay

their own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated December 16, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02363-REB-CBS Document 19 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                          16,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    110,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               141,583
<PP&E>                                          53,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,515
<BONDS>                                          1,684
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,897
<SALES>                                        287,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,744
<CGS>                                          233,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,438)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (578)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02439-RPM

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 455,

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,

a labor organization,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

 

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal [14] filed January 19, 2012, it is

ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own fees

and expenses.

Dated: January 20th, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02439-RPM Document 15 Filed 01/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
194 La. 774

#### STATE v. MOORE.

No. 35576.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 1940.

A.- J. Hollander,' of New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Lessley P. Gardiner, Atty. Gen., and Niels F. Hertz, Dist. Atty., R. A. Dowling, assisting the State, ,and George J. Gulotta, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of New Orleans, for appellee, the State.

Ó’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for the crime of assaulting a person by wilfully shooting at him.

The only bill of exception in the record is one which was reserved to the overruling of a motion and supplemental motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. In the original motion the defendant claimed that he had discovered two new .witnesses, after the trial, who were ey.e witnesses to the difficulty in which the shooting occurred, and that, if a new trial would be granted, the testimony of the two witnesses would justify an acquittal. It is admitted in the motion that the two witnesses were summoned forty-eight hours before the case was called for trial, and that they came into court about the time when the case was called for trial. The only reason given for the failure of the attorney to call the two witnesses to the stand is that “he did not know what their testimony would be.” It was the duty of the defendant to find out, and to inform his attorney, what would be the testimony of the two witnesses whom he ’Had summoned. It is obvious that either there vyas a lack of diligence on the part of the defendant or he did not want the testimony of the two witnesses on the trial of the case. In the supplemental motion for a new trial the defendant claims that he discovered another new witness after the trial. It is alleged that, if a new trial is granted, the testimony of this witness will show that the defendant' had a right to be on the premises where the shooting occurred. But there is nothing in the record to show the relevancy or importance of the fact that the defendant' had a right to be on the premises where ,the shooting occurred. On the trial of the motion and supplemental motion for a new trial the judge heard the testimony of’the .three so-called newly-discovered .witnesses, and heard, the testimony of another witness; but the testimony is not in the record. Hence we are controlled by the statement per curiam, to the effect that there was no showing of due diligence on the part of..the defendant or his attorney in the matter of obtaining the alleged newly-discovered testimony before the case went to trial, — and that the testi*779mony of the alleged newly-discovered witnesses was not of sufficient importance to be apt to bring about an acquittal. There is nothing in either the original motion or the supplemental motion for a new trial, or elsewhere in the record, to cause us to doubt that the judge was right in refusing to grant a new trial.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending July 18, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodSOUTHERN BANCORP BANK OF ARKANSAS                                                                                       * 18C
Exhibit 10.2

March 27, 2009

Via Electronic Mail

Compensation Committee of

The Board of Directors

Taylor Capital Group, Inc.

9550 West Higgins Road

Rosemont, Illinois 60018

Re: Voluntary Reduction in Compensation

Dear Fellow Board Members,

As you know, we have engaged in aggressive
cost-cutting efforts at all levels of our organization in response to the continuing challenging economic conditions. These initiatives have led to significant savings and thereby enhanced our ability to preserve capital and execute on our growth
strategy.

With your oversight, management has specifically focused on ways in which to reduce our overall compensation expense. As part of our efforts in
this area, I have evaluated my own compensation and believe that it would be appropriate for me to forego certain elements of my compensation until market conditions and our performance improves. To that end, I hereby offer and agree to forego my
auto allowance and reimbursements for country club expenditures (with the exception of expenses directly associated with customer events). I have also agreed to a 22% reduction in my guaranteed bonus for 2008 (from $300,000 to $233,000).

I would ask that you re-evaluate my compensation at September 30, 2009 and on a quarterly basis thereafter and, if appropriate, restore my auto allowance and
country club expense reimbursements in accordance with corporate policy.

Thank you for your continued leadership and please let me know if you have any
questions or would like to discuss this matter further.



|                 
|-----------------
|Very truly yours,
|                 
|/s/ Mark A. Hoppe
|Mark A. Hoppe    
|President        



1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7043

STEPHEN NIVENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; 

DAYENA M. CORCORAN, Commissioner; RUSSELL A. NEVERDON, SR., 

Director of IGO; RICHARD DOVEY, Warden; BALTIMORE COUNTY 

DETENTION CENTER; DAVID R. BLUMBERG, Parole Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:20-cv-02660-TDC)

Submitted: May 22, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Nivens, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7043 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Nivens appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss or for summary judgment on Nivens’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Nivens v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 8:20-cv-02660-TDC (D. Md. filed Aug. 

19, 2022 & entered Aug. 22, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7043 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 26, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-1164

Lower Tribunal No. 08-24995

________________



### Arturo Ortiz Soto

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian,

Judge.

Arturo Ortiz Soto, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Arlisa Certain, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, FERNANDEZ, and SCALES, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Arturo Ortiz Soto appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for

postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, as well

as denial of his petition for habeas relief. We affirm as to both.Soto accepted the State’s plea offer to resolve four cases which were

pending against him, one of which was this case, F08-24995. In accepting a

negotiated plea, Soto effectively waived the non-jurisdictional issues he raised in

prior post-conviction motions and which he raises again here. See Haselden v.

State

, 386 So. 2d 624, 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (holding the failure to timely raise

a defect in an information constitutes a waiver of the defect unless the information

wholly fails to charge a crime); Tracey v. State

, 130 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1961)

(holding failure to allege an essential element of an offense does not alone render

the charge void as wholly failing to state a crime, and failure to timely object to

this defect constitutes waiver). See also Novaton v. State

, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.

1994) (holding a defendant waives any double jeopardy claim that affects his

conviction or sentence by entering into a negotiated plea agreement wherein the

defendant agrees to each crime and sentence); Zaetler v. State

, 616 So. 2d 461 (Fla.

3d DCA), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1993) (voluntary guilty plea plus

agreement on sentence waived any double jeopardy objection as to convictions and

sentences). As such, we affirm.

Affirmed.

2
Intellicell Corp,
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                    Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)
                        

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            For the 3 Months Ended March 31,
                                                            --------------------------------
                                                                   1996         1997
                                                            --------------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>           <C>         
Earnings (Loss) per share:
Pro forma net income (loss) for primary
earnings (loss) per share                                      $   150,000   $  (382,000)
                                                               =========================
Weighted average common shares outstanding                       2,030,000     4,507,464

Weighted average shares sold to fund stockholder
  distribution paid out of proceeds of initial public offering     142,346          --

Weighted average shares resulting from conversion of
  convertible notes payable at a discount from market               23,464          --
                                                               -------------------------
Weighted average common shares and equivalents                   2,195,810     4,507,464
                                                               =========================

Primary pro forma earnings (lose) per share                    $      0.07   $     (0.08)
                                                               =========================
</TABLE>


For the quarters ended March 31, 1996 and 1997, no additional common stock
equivalents (upon exercise of common share equivalents under the modified
treasury stock method) were included in the calculation of earnings (loss) per
share. For the quarter ended March 31, 1996, no such common shares equivalents
existed and for the quarter ended March 31, 1997, the results would be
anti-dilutive. For the quarter ended March 31, 1996 and 1997 earnings (loss) per
share was identical under the primary and fully diluted basis.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH

CARL GENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN S. PORTER,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 1, 2015. 

Defendant’s [Re-Filed] Unopposed Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order [filed

November 27, 2015; docket #229] is once again denied without prejudice, and the proposed

Stipulated Protective Order is refused. The parties are granted leave to re-file their motion and again

submit a revised proposed protective order consistent with Gillard v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist., 196

F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), in which the Court requires a specific mechanism by which the parties

may challenge the designation of information as confidential. See id. at 388-89. Notably, Gillard

requires the party designating information as confidential to file a motion and carry the burden

when such designation is challenged, which is counter to the approach taken in Defendant’s

proposed Stipulated Protective Order.

Case 1:11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH Document 233 Filed 12/01/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         3068651
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               5925000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   14367024
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         5825625
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           5829535
<LOANS>                                       46102105
<ALLOWANCE>                                     842715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                76845806
<DEPOSITS>                                    68426591
<SHORT-TERM>                                    130552
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            2116888
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       3920750
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                76845806
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4064107
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               859871
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                456299
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               5380277
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2491616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2494720
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2885557
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    92935
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2042641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1088479
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      870458
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    870458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.28
<LOANS-NON>                                         13
<LOANS-PAST>                                        15
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 699000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                763318
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    92935
<RECOVERIES>                                     70702
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               842715
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            396492
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         446223
        

</TABLE>