alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WILLIAM HENRY THOMAS, III , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , 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 1 4

- 5544

_____________________________/ Opinion filed April 28, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. James H. Daniels , Judge

. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark Graham Hanson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant , and Appellant, pro se

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM. This appeal is brought under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Upon review of the record, we find no prese rved error warranting reversal. W e affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.2 However, a review of the record reveals a possible sentencing error concerning the court’s assessment of $100 in sheriff’ s investigative cost s imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), as the court did not orally pronounce the discretionary cost at the sentencing hearing. Mills v. State , 177 So. 3d 984, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing the $100 sheriff’s investigative cost “without notice or hearing and without specifically identifying it at sentencing”) ; Lippwe v. State , 152 So. 3d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (ruling that investigative fees pursuant to section 938.27(1),
Florida Statutes , “must be requested on the record b y the appropriate agency”) ; Kirkland v. State , 106 So. 3d 4, 4

- 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “the trial

court should have orally pronounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a discretionary cost and not a mandatory cost”)

. Because appellant did n ot preserve the error either by objecting during imposition of the sentence or by filing a motion to correct sentencing errors, this Court must affirm. See Ramos v. State , 156 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We do so without prejudice to appellant ’s right to file an appropriate post

- conviction motion to correct any unpreserved sentencing errors.
See i d. ; see also Collando

- Pena v. State , 141 So. 3d 229 ( Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirming appellant’s judgment and unpreserved sentencing error “without prejudice to his right to seek timely collateral relief”).
AFFIRMED.3 LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR; SWANSON, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated April 24, 2000, except for Note 13, as to which the
date is September 29, 2000, in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement
(Form S-1) and related Prospectus of Motive Communications, Inc. for the
registration of shares of its common stock.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Austin, Texas

October 16, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,265)
<INVENTORY>                                     52,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,495
<PP&E>                                          91,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                (66,679)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,209
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,601
<SALES>                                         65,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,345
<CGS>                                           44,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                       413
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 202 (Friday, October 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24646]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, Special Emphasis Panel ``NIH, Support for Conferences and 
Scientific Meetings''.
    Date: November 19, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Health, 6700, 6700B Rockledge Dr, 
3119, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Ileana M. Ponce-Gonzalez, MD, MPH, Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge 
Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-3679, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81e8f1e6eeeffbe0ede4fbc1efe8e0e8e5afefe8e9afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b120b1c1415011a171e013b15121a121f55151213551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 9, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-24646 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 13, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00370-CV

JAMES ROY STEAGALL, Appellant 

V.

KATHERINE SCMIDT, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 280th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-18988 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This appeal is from a judgment signed April 24, 2019. No clerk’s record has 

been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the 

court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On June 28, 2019, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court 

with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 
2

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A1 45 5 . SAMUEL ANKRAH v . DOREEN LAW RENCE.

Th e ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal hav in g b een i m p ro v i d en t l y g ran t ed , t h i s ap p eal i s d i s m i s s ed

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## October 23, 2020

10/23/2020
#### Kurt Leichtentritt, Plaintiff, *v.*Anne Leichtentritt, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

April 2, 1957.

*Dante S. Alberi*for plaintiff.

*Samuel E. Siegel*and *Maxwell N. Budaw*for defendant.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

The action is in libel and slander. The parties are husband and wife who have been recently living separate and apart. Plaintiff husband claims that defendant wife is defaming him in his character as a person and in his profession as a doctor. Each of the parties has served notice to examine the other before trial, and the adversary has in each case moved to vacate.

Pretrial examinations in actions.for defamation are not generally favored in this department *(Malus*v. *Sperry Corp.,*133 N. Y. S. 2d 286, affd. 282 App. Div. 939; *Rowland*v. *Stim,*147 N. Y. S. 2d 876, affd. 283 App. Div. 942). While limited examinations are allowed in appropriate cases *(Bernhard & Co.*v. *Tobacco Leaf Pub. Co.,*148 N. Y. S. 2d 639), this is not, in my view, that kind of case. Nor are general examinations before trial allowed in matrimonial actions — of which the case at bar is an unusual symptom *(Tausik*v. *Tausik,*280 App. Div. 887; *Field*v. *Field,*281 App. Div. 657; *Hurwitz*v. *Hurwitz,*3 A D 2d 744; Bronx County, Supreme Ct. Buies, Trial and Special Terms, rule XX, subd. 6; New York County, Supreme Ct. Trial Term Bules, rule XI, subd. 6).

Moreover, each of the notices to examine is intrinsically bad. I shall not here detail the items in defendant’s notice. Suffice it to say that, in the absence of affirmative defense, defendant is not entitled to inquire into matters concerning truth and justification (see *Billingsley*v. *Better Business Bur. of N. Y. City,*231 App. Div. 802; *James*v. *Labanowski,*N. Y. L. J., April 2, 1957, p. 9, col. 3). On the other hand, the legal vulnerability of plaintiff’s notice is, I think, apparent from its mere *599reading: *‘ ‘*The defendant, on December 13th, 1955, and prior thereto, made false accusations against the plaintiff, who is a medical doctor, to third persons, at various places, among whom were patients of the plaintiff, orally, by written communication and personally, and all the attendant circumstances therein ’ ’ (cf. *Bohlinger*v. *Rosenbaum,*6 Misc 2d 235).

The motions to vacate are respectively granted, and orders have been signed accordingly.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
is made this 17th day of
December, 2008 by and between EAU TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and DOUG
KINDRED,an
individual resident of the State of Georgia (the “Employee”)
 
 BACKGROUND
 
 WHEREAS, Company and Employee
previously entered into an employment agreement dated October 24, 2006 (the
“Employment
Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the
Employment Agreement to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”).
 
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration
often dollars and
other for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as
follows:
 
 1.           Section
(i) of Schedule 1 attached to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:
 
 (i)           “Permanent
Disability” shall mean (i) the inability of the Employee to engage in any
substantial gainful activity with respect to the Employee’s duties with the
Company by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months; (ii) the receipt by the
Employee of income replacement benefits for a period of not less than three (3)
months under an accident and health plan covering employees of the Company by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be
expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than twelve (12) months; or (iii) the Employee is determined to be
disabled by the Social Security Administration.
  2.           In
all other respects, the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.
  
 
 
 [Remainder
of page intentionally left blank.]
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed and delivered this Agreement on the date set forth
above.


COMPANY:
                  EAU
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.By:
                /s/ Karl
      HellmanPrint
      Name: Karl HellmanTitle:            Director
 EMPLOYEE:By:
                  /s/ Doug
      KindredDoug
      Kindred
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00448-CV

CITY OF FORT WORTH, Appellant

V.

HORACE BEASLEY, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2021-002172-1)

May 19, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

reversed and we render judgment dismissing Appellee Horace Beasley’s claims against 

the Appellant City of Fort Worth.

It is further ordered that Appellant City of Fort Worth shall pay all of the costs 

of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Subsequent Arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy 
Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 1.14 kg of 
Uranium, containing .225 kg of U-235, in the form of one standard fuel 
assembly. The material will be sent from McMaster University, Canada to 
CERCA, France for repair and will be returned to Canada. CERCA is 
authorized to receive nuclear material pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom 
Agreement for Cooperation.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    For the Department of Energy.
Richard Goorevich,
Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. E8-24642 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Werk et al. *v.*The Lorain Street Savings *&*Trust Co. et al.

(No. 25715

Decided December 18, 1935.)

*Mr. 0. F. Goudy,*for plaintiff in error F. A. Werk.

*Mr. Louis Wm. Gering, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error Gertrude Dahl and Elsie Bieltz.

*Messrs. Garfield, Gross, Daoust, Baldwin é Vrooman,*for defendant in error The Lorain Street Savings *&*Trust Company.

*Mr. John W. Brieher,*attorney general, and *Mr. J. Roth Crabbe,*for defendant in error Samuel H. Squire, Superintendent of Banks.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32**
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, John S. Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport of Sybase, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Sybase, Inc.      By: /s/ JOHN S. CHEN     Name: John S. Chen  Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
I, Pieter A. Van der Vorst, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Sybase, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Sybase, Inc.      By: /s/ PIETER A. VAN DER VORST     Name: Pieter A. Van der Vorst  Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
42
**Exhibit 32**

 

**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 Quarterly report of Energroup Technologies Corp.,(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), I(We), Stephen R. Fry, President and Director and Thomas J. Howells, Secretary and Director, 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| *Date:*** | *11/06/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/ Stephen R. Fry***                                   |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Stephen R. Fry, President and Director***               |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                                                 |
| *Date:*** | *11/06/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Thomas J. Howells***                                 |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Thomas J. Howells, Secretary, Treasurer and Director*** |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

______________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION AND

MOTION REQUESTING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING

______________________________________________________________________

The defendant, Alois Craig Weingart, by appointed counsel, gives notice that a 

disposition has been reached in this case. The defendant requests a change of plea hearing for 

the Court to consider the proposed plea agreement. The defendant also requests this Court to 

vacate all deadlines set to include the trial set for five weeks beginning March 18, 2013. 

[Courtroom Minutes at Doc. No. 132]

DATED this 19th day of February, 2013.

Respectfully submitted

s/ Paula M. Ray

Paula M. Ray, P.C.

P.O. Box 12554

Denver, CO 80212-0554

Telephone: 303-874-5170

Email: paulamray@earthlink.net

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 221 filed 02/19/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of February, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing 

via CM/ECF on all interested parties.

s/ Paula M. Ray

Law Office of Paula M. Ray

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 221 filed 02/19/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification Pursuant

To 18 U.S.C. 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald R. Cysewski, ChiefExecutive 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)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | February 11, 2005                   |   |    /s/  Gerald R. Cysewski |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gerald R.  Cysewski,                     |
|   | *Chairman  of the Board of Directors,*   |
|   | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 17, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.229 Identified Miscellaneous Financial Claims - Part I** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|