alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2-lZ-Ol

-WlRTOPCRlMlWAijiffiS

TNtT*/JEMATTjfA r

TjEXAS

/wr/d/v**xttwrM&¥A^£dms/

APPd&wf /&/&t^fJz>7)£e^da^Asfederal}/nab^ P&P afPeytc r/v/tr

Ttf/s SfflrtteanSfduz T/tdtekSfM oATToDJcnrefiU^VfAT'ft/rtt As

Jdkffl eomtfMm as &jdA

7f/£fa,t ff/idJuMn JDSfotd&xdmiAe /b£ 7h/S£&QU£St af£ as fo/louj - AfPlfcanFi5 /rid//)&2nlana'j/iisa/i^ra'&dfand'does /)&fMt/e a&ess 7dAM>TV

IDPfir* appi/a//)t/s/)orJfems&?ferd£>y<bon<stJ and uAlllkseMe^MnU&k

£ndf As a?P&tifor J?£tfha/£&JCytmhon af#zso/)&bU £//nz Jz> P/tfa/e>

£uch brftfA/oju IdfcrfhGA 9d/^/<TASfdteJM 1?/kde/^flaws„

Be&fojc ThuJenTwdL U/olahs 7fits datrf dio/i jptind&fcfjJi&& Sizfot&Y&

rnandcJti and UiA//Tld'J£&S fcd&d&d &/i/tot> dfP>//&i/)J Wo &*?dat¥'%£&*("

TD iffflowdDurtaftiojcs andfJod^e mfc¥M A) fMitdTdT/fr-sa/jzt A/td

Dt/f£>o//i6> msF/fa/ic^ oa ^ VoW* Judbem&it rfctUifssoo&t De^mm Md

this dOunJ- UohU as /YidP/acHc&j mahcu PrpMasf/d/) Pasoajif ftrr/f ss~-

^ed/m /P33 &A Jf/fcorittd'sfctLdjomiii^in ro uP/b/d^hu ^uer//)^

idJfeJZ&fieej dfy&&?ucdMfdtzrd7/JtAfiAd^^Sesfiatd-f^/fMettus/.

fMJftadow/GiljL teurt &rwd'and'6k msJea^^Mt^etSV&lkAMfa

/azBcU/koA j/r/ft/Jtiajrt.

Jad&n unit #&-£*-
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

OCEAN DRIVE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL LTD. CO.,

a dissolved Florida limited liability company, and

DEKEL SVORAI,

Appellants,

v.

SANDTON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., and

N427TL, LLC, a dissolved Florida limited liability company,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1586

[May 5, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE10-

33527.

Nicole R. Moskowitz of Neustein Law Group, P.A., Aventura, for 

appellants.

Riley W. Cirulnick of Lorium Law, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee 

Sandton Capital Partners, L.P.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84934) of World Health Alternatives,Inc. and the related prospectus of our audit report dated February 27, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2003 and consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows of World HealthAlternatives, Inc. and its subsidiary then ended in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ DASZKAL BOLTON LLP 

 

Boca Raton, Florida

April 19, 2004
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JESUS GABRIEL CONDOM
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 850

[ January 14, 202 1 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 014186

- CF

- 10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, K LINGENSMITH and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1791-DR]


Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1791-DR), dated September 13, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 26, 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: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 13, 2008.

    Galveston County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already 
designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and 
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct 
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    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. E8-24094 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.8



                                     SUMMARY
                      ANTHONY MOORE COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


      The following agreement was proposed and approved by the Board of
Directors on December 18, 1999:

      That in exchange for capital raising services to be provided to the
Company (SportsNuts.com) by Mr. Moore, the Board of Directors approved the grant
of the following compensation for each investment of at least $100,000 to
"accredited investors" as such term is defined in Regulation D of the
Securities Act of 1933:

      (i) payment of 9% cash commissions;

      (ii) issuance of bonus shares equal to 15% of the gross proceeds received
by the Company; and

      (iii) issuance of warrants to acquire shares of Common Stock at an
exercise price of $1.00 per share, equal to 8.5% of the gross proceeds received
by the Company.

     That on receipt of the consideration therefor, such bonus shares so issued
shall be duly authorized, issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of stock
of the Corporation.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAY H. WILLIAMS, an individual, and 

NEWTON TEN, INC., a Colorado corporation

Defendants.

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulation (“Stipulation”)

(ECF No. 67). The Court having reviewed the Stipulation and all related exhibits,

pleadings and documents, and being fully advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS as

follows:

1. The Parties Motion for Judgment is GRANTED (ECF No. 69). 

2. Consistent with the Stipulation and pursuant to F.R.C.P 54, final judgment

is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and

severally, on Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief - Fraud related to Lien

Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief - Fraud related to Omnibus

Amendment for the total principal amount of $800,000.00, plus postjudgment interest from the date of the Settlement Agreement at the rate of

36% per annum (“Fraud Judgment”).

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 72 Filed 04/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

3. Plaintiff shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

incurred in attempting to collect and/or enforce the Fraud Judgment, which

fees and costs shall be added to and included in the judgment amount.

4. Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and this Court’s Order approving

same, execution of the Fraud Judgment is stayed so long as Defendants

fulfil their payment obligation to Plaintiff.

5. The Clerk shall enter Final Judgment in accordance with this Order.

Dated this 16th day of April, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 72 Filed 04/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32

Form 10-Q

|   | (1) | To my knowledge, 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 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/ Mark Klok      |
| Mark Klok               |
|                    |
|                    |
| Chief Executive Officer |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Horton, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 720]

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered May 31, 2000, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the third degree, *467intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended sentence of the same court, imposed June 14, 2000, upon the conviction of attempted rape in the first degree.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended sentence is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing on the conviction of attempted rape in the first degree, in accordance herewith.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that his conviction must be reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct throughout the trial. With respect to any prosecutorial misconduct that may have occurred during the trial, the misconduct did not substantially prejudice the defendant’s trial *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 401; *People v White,*196 AD2d 641).

As the People correctly concede on this appeal, the Supreme Court’s failure to have the defendant produced for resentencing on his conviction of attempted rape in the first degree after it determined that the original sentence was unlawful, violated the defendant’s statutory right to be present at the time sentence is pronounced *(see*CPL 380.40; *People v Crossland,*251 AD2d 509; *People v Brown,*155 AD2d 608; *People v Lucks,*91 AD2d 896, 897).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02601-RBJ-KMT

DAVOUD ASHOURI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRONTIER STEEL BUILDINGS CORP.,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02601-RBJ Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT32.2**

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 Ciprico Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the Year ended September 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Monte S.Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: December 7, 2006 | /s/ Monte S. Johnson                       |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Monte S. Johnson   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 99(a)

Household Finance Corporation
HRSI Funding, Inc. II
Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2001-1


Original Class A Principal                      400,000,000.00
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                     400,000.00
Original Class B Principal                       58,275,000.00
Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                      58,275.00


Distribution Date                                                2002 Totals

CLASS A
-------
Class A Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class A Interest                                                   7,850,572.66


CLASS B
-------
Class B Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class B Interest                                                   1,326,390.08
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.24

                               FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
                         SERVICES AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT

         This Fourth Amendment to Service and Support Agreement (the "Fourth
Amendment") effective as of January 1, 2000 is by and between Coast Dental
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CDS") and Coast Florida, P.A., a
Florida professional service corporation (the "Dental Practice Entity").

                                 R E C I T A L S

         WHEREAS, CDS and Dental Practice Entity are parties to that certain
Services and Support Agreement dated as of October 1, 1996, amended on June 1,
1997, further amended on October 1, 1998 and further amended on February 1, 1999
(the "Services and Support Agreement");

         WHEREAS, the Dental Practice Entity has developed a new professional
compensation plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, the Plan is designed to provide incentive based compensation
to the dental professionals by aligning compensation with individual
performance;

         WHEREAS, CDS believes the Plan developed by the Dental Practice Entity
should be beneficial to CDS and CDS wants to provide the Dental Practice Entity
the ability to properly implement the Plan;

         WHEREAS, CDS and the Dental Practice Entity are now desirous of
modifying the Services and Support Agreement in accordance with the terms of the
Fourth Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree
to modify, supplement and amend the Services and Support Agreement as follows:

         1. Recitals. The statements contained in the Recitals of facts set
forth above are true and correct and are by this reference made a part of the
Fourth Amendment.

         2. Service and Support Fee. Exhibit "A" to the Services and Support
Agreement is hereby amended to change the S & S Fee percentage to Sixty-Seven
percent (67%).

         3. Other Provisions. All of the term and provisions contained in the
Services and Support Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless
specifically modified, supplemented or amended by the Fourth Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals
on the day and year first above written.


                                          "DENTAL PRACTICE ENTITY"

                                          COAST FLORIDA, P.A.

                                          /s/ Adam Diasti, D.D.S.
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Adam Diasti, D.D.S., President


                                         "CDS"

                                          COAST DENTAL SERVICES, INC.

                                          /s/ Terek Diasti
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Terek Diasti, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

     I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, DaimlerChrysler Debenture-Backed Series 2002-4 Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
            servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
            respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
            report of the Trust;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as
            a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
            or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
            made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
            were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered
            by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
            provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
            under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion
            in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
            based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
            Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 28, 2005


     /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elvin Thomas, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered April 17, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Winick, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was arrested in his residence in violation of *Payton v New York*(445 US 573), and that his inculpatory statement to the police therefore should have been suppressed. It is well settled that the factual determinations of a hearing court are to be accorded great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Cartier,*149 AD2d 524). The hearing testimony in this case supports the court’s conclusion that the defendant was lawfully arrested as part of a continuous pursuit by police which originated in a public place. Inasmuch as a criminal suspect may not thwart an otherwise proper arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by retreating into his residence *(see, United States v Santana,*427 US 38; *People v Bero,*139 AD2d 581), the hearing court properly rejected the defendant’s claim *875of a *Payton*violation. In any event, even if a *Payton*violation had been demonstrated in this case, suppression of the statement would not be required, as the United States Supreme Court has recently held that "where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of *Payton” (New York v*Harris., 495 US —, —, 110 S Ct 1640, 1644-1645).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, we find that the defendant’s sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.