alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MICHAEL McWILLIAMS FAMILY, Appellant, v. DESTIN HOLIDAY BEACH RESORT/HBR Development II, Limited/O.W.O. Investment, Inc., RCI, CMS, et al., Appellees.

No. 1D10-2300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 16, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 2011.

Michael McWilliams, pro se, Appellant.

Louis A. Maygarden, III, Pensacola, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Brooke v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP,*828 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and *Rigby v. Liles,*505 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

BENTON, C.J., PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: In the Interest of J.R.W. and J.M., Children
Appellate case number: 01

- 2 1

- 00 157

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 03761

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County
On March 29, 2021, appellant, mother, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s March 7, 2021 order in a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship. This Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed

, so far as reasonably possible. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2, reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. tit. 2, subtit. F app. Appellant’s brief was due to be filed in this Court on or before April 29, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). However, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion to extend the deadline for filing her brief

. Appellant is directed to file her brief in th is Court within ten days of the date of this order

. If appellant fails to file a brief as directed in this order , we may abate this appeal and direct the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant still wishes to pursue her appeal and whe ther substitute counsel should be appointed. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 107.016(2) (providing appointed counsel must continue to serve until appeal is exhausted or waived, or attorney is relieved of her duties and replaced by court).
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____ /s/ April Farris

_________  Acting in dividually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ May 12, 2021

____
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

November 16, 2020

Order 

Clerk

November 16, 2020

162235(25)

In re JACKSON.

______________________________________

DOUGLAS CORNELL JACKSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 162235

v COA: 353559

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to suspend fees is considered and it is 

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable 

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to 

continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order 

and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order as acknowledgement of his 

responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being 

administratively dismissed.

If appellant timely complies with this order, monthly payments shall be made to the

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. That amount shall then be 

remitted to this Court.

Generally, appellant may not file a new civil action or appeal in this Court until the 

filing fee in this case is paid in full. MCL 600.2963(8).

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return 

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  [Mr. EHLERS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            5,341
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           10,625
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    498
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      10,719
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            2,269
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              2,274
<LOANS>                                         133,058
<ALLOWANCE>                                         957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  173,343
<DEPOSITS>                                      142,235
<SHORT-TERM>                                      9,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1,483
<LONG-TERM>                                       6,383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          1,877
<OTHER-SE>                                       10,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  173,343
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   7,717
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1,276
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                      0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  8,993
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                4,465
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5,322
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3,671
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       136
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  984
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,207
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1,207
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.50  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.50  
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        8.34  
<LOANS-NON>                                         620
<LOANS-PAST>                                        113
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    934
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       232
<RECOVERIES>                                        119
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   957
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                855
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             102
                                               


</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00438 - CV IN RE EVANGELOS PAGO NIS, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### January 9 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. Relator Evangelos Pagonis, a Texas inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus , 1 but did not accompany his petition with the required filing fee. By letter dated December 18, 2018 , we directed Pagonis to pay the filing fee of $1 55 or, in lieu thereof, t o comply with c hapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code by fil ing an affidavit of indigence, a n affidavit relating to previous filings , and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement
. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017 ). We advised Pagonis that if he did not comply by December 28 , this proceeding was subject to dismissal without further notice.

1 Pagonis filed documents with this Court on October 15 and December 11, 2018, which we have construed as a single petition for writ of mandamus.2

On January 2, 2019 , Pagonis filed an affidavit of indigence and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement . However, Pagonis did not file an affidavit or declaratio n describing his previous filings. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 14.004 (a), (b) (requiring an affidavit or a declaration stating the operative facts , case name, cause number, court, parties named, and the r esult of each action previously brought ). Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the Clerk of this C ourt is required to collect filing fees set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 5, 12.1( b). An inmate who files an affidavit or a declaration of inability to pay costs in an appeal or original proceeding must also comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 14.002 (a). An inma te’s failure to comply with chapter 14 is grounds for dismissal of the appeal or original proceeding. See In re Johnson , No. 07 - 16 - 00354 - CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11841, at *2 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo Nov. 1, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dis missing inmate’s petition for writ of mandamus for failure to pay the filing fee or submit the materials required to proceed under chapter 14). Because Pagonis has failed to pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code wi thin the time provided by this C ourt for compliance, his ori ginal proceeding is dismissed. P er Curiam
#### Mary Lombardo SAUSVILLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D08-4053.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 4, 2009.

John P. Flannery, II, of Campbell, Miller, and Zimmerman, P.C., Leesburg, Virginia and Jeffrey S. Weiner, Miami, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ZAMBRANO, R.,

Associate Judge.

Mary Lombardo Sausville appeals her violation of probation sentence on four counts of vehicular homicide. Although Ms. Sausville has presented an interesting argument, this Court is foreclosed from considering it because the issues were not properly raised or preserved below. *See Steinhorst v. State,*412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“[F]or an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”); *Montes v. State,*994 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). As a result, Ms. Saus-ville’s sentence is affirmed. Notwithstanding, Ms. Sausville is free to raise her trial counsel’s failure to seek a recusal of the sentencing judge and present mitigating evidence at sentencing by way of a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30323 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LESTER J. MILLET, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CR-187-ALL-T

-------------------- October 21, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Lester Millet appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial, evidentiary hearing, and in camera inspection of evidence. Millet’s motion stems from his 1996 conviction by jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (Hobbs Act); § 1952 (Travel Act), and §§ 2, 1956 (money laundering). The convictions were based on Millet’s misuse of his official position as Parish President of St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, in persuading officials of Formosa Chemical Corporation (Formosa) to purchase land in the parish. Millet’sNo. 99-30323 -2- convictions were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Millet , 123 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 1997). Millet argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 because of newly discovered evidence. Millet contends that an official of Formosa would now testify that Millet’s activities were not a factor in Formosa’s decision to abandon plans to build a rayon plant in the parish, and thus Millet’s activities did not have the requisite effect on interstate commerce necessary to support a conviction under the Hobbs Act. Millet also contends that the Government suppressed this testimony in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This court will reverse the denial of a motion for a new trial only when there has been an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Pena , 949 F.2d 751, 758 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Millet’s motion because Millet has not shown that the evidence is in fact newly discovered since the official in question testified at trial, nor has Millet shown that the evidence probably would produce a different result in a new trial. United States v. MMR Corp. , 954 F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir. 1992). Evidence is material under Brady when there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed to the defense. United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). Millet has not shown that the Government suppressed the testimony in question or that the testimony is material Brady evidence.No. 99-30323 -3-

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57478-57479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as a Commercial 
Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as a 
commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Chem Coast, Inc., 11820 North H Street, Laporte, TX 77571, 
has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and 
petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the 
provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ

[[Page 57479]]

this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should 
request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is 
accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, 
inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is 
accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also 
be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1a2a3b1efada0a3a9b081a5a9b2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e1d1c0e50121f1c160f3e1a160d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed 
below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited 
laboratories.
    http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 2, 2010. The 
next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: September 13, 2010.
 Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-23482 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Shawn SMALLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2856.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 2010.

*47Shawn Smalls, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

WELLS, Judge.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the post-conviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), (D).

Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.12    
    





November 12, 2003




EarlyBirdCapital, Inc.

600 Third Avenue

33rd Floor

New York, New York 10016 


	Re:
	CEA Acquisition Corporation



Gentlemen:



        This
letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to purchase warrants ("Warrants") of CEA Acquisition Corporation ("Company") included in the units ("Units") being sold in the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Each Unit is comprised of one share of Common Stock and two Warrants. The shares of Common Stock and Warrants
will not be separately tradeable until 90 days after the effective date of the Company's IPO unless EarlyBirdCapital, Inc. ("EBC") informs the Company of its decision to allow earlier
separate trading. 


        The
undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an irrevocable order for EBC to purchase for the undersigned's account within the forty trading-day period
commencing on the date separate trading of the Warrants commences ("Separation Date") up to 1,000,000 Warrants at market prices not to exceed $0.65 per Warrant ("Maximum Warrant Purchase"). EBC (or
such other broker dealer(s) as EBC may assign the order to) agrees to fill such order in such amounts and at such times as it may determine, in its sole discretion, during the forty
trading-day period commencing on the Separation Date. EBC further agrees that it will not charge the undersigned any fees and/or commissions with respect to such purchase obligation. 


        The
undersigned may notify EBC that all or part of his respective Maximum Warrant Purchase will be made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or another person or entity introduced to EBC
by the undersigned (a "Designee")) who (or which) has an account at EBC and, in such event, EBC will make such purchase on behalf of said affiliate or Designee; provided, however, that the undersigned
hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase in the event that the affiliate or Designee fails to make such payment. 



        The
undersigned agrees that neither he nor any affiliate or Designee shall sell or transfer the Warrants until after the consummation of a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition or other similar business combination with an operating business in the entertainment, media and communications industry and acknowledges that, at the option of EBC, the certificates for
such Warrants shall contain a legend indicating such restriction on transferability. 



	 	 	Very truly yours,
	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	/s/  J. PATRICK MICHAELS, JR.      
 J. Patrick Michaels, Jr.













QuickLinks


Exhibit 10.12
Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Tom Hofer, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Vendalux Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2000, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Vendalux Corporation

By:       /s/
   --------------------
   Name: Tom Hofer
   Title:   Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer