alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
KEITH N. AIKEN, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AR MY, Respondent

______________________

2015

- 3180

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DA

- 0752

- 14

- 0152 -I- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K EITH N. A IKEN , Vine Grove, KY, pro se.

A LEXANDER O RLANDO C ANIZARES , Commercial Litig ation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represen ted by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER
, R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN
, J R
., D EBORAH A. B YNUM

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, Chief Judge, D YK and T ARANTO
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 11, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
#### William Deline v. The Michigan Fire & Marine Insurance Company.

*Pleading*— Amendment *of notice of defense.*

A defendant who applies for leave to add a new notice of defense to his plea after the opening of the trial must show in some way that he is entitled to such favor, and that It can be granted without injustice, and in the absence of such showing it is not error to refuse the application.

Error to Genesee. (Newton, J.)

Argued May 15, 1888.'

Decided May 23, 1888.

*Assumpsit.*Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Wilkinson é Post,*for appellant

*Durand & Carton,*for plaintiff.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued for the insurance money on a •dwelling-house policy issued to him in December, 1884. The house was burned early in May, 1886. Suit was begun in November, 1886, and put at issue on several defenses, going mostly to alleged wrongs of plaintiff in getting out the policy, and in causing the fire. In November, 1887, the case came •on for trial; and, after it had been opened to the jury, ■defendant’s counsel moved to add a new notice to the effect that plaintiff had burned a house formerly standing on the ¡same premises, and had concealed this fact from the agent when he took out the policy in suit. The court denied the motion, and most of the errors assigned are dependent on the same question.

Apart from the delay, and the fact that the case had been opened before the question was presented, the court was *436abundantly justified by the entire omission of defendant to ' make any showing whatever in support of the application. A party desiring such a favor must show in some way that-he is entitled to it, and that it can he had without injustice. Sometimes this will appear from what comes out on the trial. But in this case the motion was not made on anything appearing upon the trial, and it proposed to introduce-a new issue that the plaintiff could not be expected to meet» It is certain that allowing such a motion as was made here, which, for anything that appears, was not made on any new information, would operate very unjustly, and it was properly denied.

Beyond this question, and those depending on it, we. discover nothing alleged as error beyond some matters in no way pertinent or important, and some hearsay evidence rejected, which was plainly not admissible. In spite of the rejection of the amended notice, the court opened the door as widely, at least, as was proper, to admit a good deal of evidence bearing on the same issue; and it is clear from the result that the jury regarded plaintiff as the victim of mischief, and not its author, and disbelieved the testimony of his accusers. It is not for us to pass upon the facts, but they were at liberty to find as they did, and we suppose the circuit judge was not of opinion that their verdict was against right.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Sherwood, C. J., Champlin and Morse, JJ., concurred.
#### Eric WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D11-1551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 12, 2011.

Eric Washington, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in ease number 2009-CF-6161, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

LAWSON, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
#### Luis COSTA, et al., Appellants, v. Gary DOEHLA, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2825.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 2, 2011.

*568Kramer and Golden and Richard Golden, North Miami; Stephan N. Rosenthal, for appellants.

Scott Alan Orth, Hollywood, for appel-lee.

Before SUAREZ, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the defendants below, seek review of an “Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses or for Judgment on the Pleadings or alternatively for summary Judgment” and a subsequent order denying their motion for rehearing. Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal. *See Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*609 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); *Northcutt v. Pathway Fin.,*555 So.2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); *Smith v. Glisson,*468 So.2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Significantly, the order on appeal concludes with the following language:

> 18. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(d) provides that the Court should specify and narrow the issues for trial where full and final judgment is not yet appropriate. Accordingly, this Court rules that:

> a. The affirmative defenses do not bar Plaintiffs claim and they are hereby stricken and alternatively partial summary judgment on all of the remaining defenses in favor of Doehla is appropriate;

> b. Plaintiff Gary Doehla has a valid judgment lien against The Property;

> c. The amount of Plaintiffs claim has yet to be determined and will be determined by subsequent proceedings.

Because no final judgment has been entered and the order at issue does not fall within any of the limited categories of appealable non-final orders, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Michael GRILLO, Appellant, v. Sandi CLAY, Appellee.

No. 4D10-4553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2011.

Peter Mineo, Jr. of Mineo & Mineo, P.A., and Christopher A. Grillo of Christopher A. Grillo, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Otto D. Rafuse of Moss, Rafuse & Rosa-ti, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Grillo appeals the trial court’s order modifying his child support obligation by requiring him to pay for private preschool tuition for the minor child. Because the trial court issued this order without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the order is reversed. Upon remand, the trial court shall hold an evi-dentiary hearing on the matter, assuming it is still relevant, before entering a new order addressing the preschool tuition issue. Further, we note that the order itself was defective in that it conditioned Grillo’s exercise of time sharing upon his payment of the new preschool tuition obligation. *See, e.g., Hastings v. Rigsbee,*875 So.2d 772, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A parent’s visitation rights may not be conditioned on the payment of the parent’s financial obligations, including the payment of child support.”).

We decline to address the remaining issues raised by the parties.

*Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.*

HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM MERCADO.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Kevin M. LEGRAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-6863.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 20, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 2011.

Kevin M. Legrand, pro se, Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

WEBSTER, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of the Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with AmendmentNo. 1 on Form 10-K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PRAECISPHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2003, I, Kevin F. McLaughlin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Kevin F.  McLaughlin |                     |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|
| Name:                    | Kevin F.  McLaughlin     |
| Title:                   | Chief  Financial Officer |
| Date:                    | May 7, 2004              |
|                          |                          |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and will be retainedby PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and furnished to the Securities andExchange  Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemedincorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act or theExchange Act, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.'s
333-74784 on Form S-8 and 333-68001 on Form S-3 of Noble International, Ltd. of
our report dated March 21, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to its changed method of
accounting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets and goodwill in
2002), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Noble International, Ltd.
for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 28, 2003
#### Dewayne Wesley WRIGHT v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

No. 2011-C-0627.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Wright, Dewayne Wesley; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 447,182; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,810-CW.

Writ granted. Based on our de novo review, we conclude there is a disputed issue as to whether coverage exits under the policy issued by Continental Casualty Company to Dr. Tedesco. For this reason, we conclude the court of appeal erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer. See La.C.C.P. art. 966(B). Accordingly, the court of appeal ruling is reversed, and the trial court’s judgment denying the motion for summary judgment is reinstated. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1349 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 

in income taxes on Social Security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the 1993 increase in income taxes on Social Security benefits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1993 INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL 

4 SECURITY BENEFITS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 86(a) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social se7 curity and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended 

8 by adding at the end the following: ‘‘This paragraph shall 

9 not apply to any taxable year beginning after December 

10 31, 2006.’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1349 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 871(a)(3) of 

3 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘85 percent’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘50 percent’’. 

5 (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(e)(1) 

6 of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public 

7 Law 98–21) is amended— 

8 (i) by striking ‘‘(A) There’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘There’’; 

10 (ii) by striking ‘‘(i)’’ immediately following 

11 ‘‘amounts equivalent to’’; and 

12 (iii) by striking ‘‘, less (ii)’’ and all that 

13 follows and inserting a period. 

14 (B) Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of such Act 

15 is amended by striking subparagraph (B). 

16 (C) Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act 

17 is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and by re18 designating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B). 

19 (D) Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such 

20 Act is amended in the first sentence by striking 

21 ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES ADAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2629

[February 24, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 07-002371CF10A.

James Adams, Miami, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1417 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1417

      To prohibit the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
 notwithstanding the 2005 recommendations of the Defense Base Closure 
                      and Realignment Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2007

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To prohibit the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
 notwithstanding the 2005 recommendations of the Defense Base Closure 
                      and Realignment Commission.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CLOSURE OF WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER.

    Notwithstanding section 2904(a)(5) of the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 
U.S.C. 2687 note) and the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission contained in the report transmitted to 
Congress on September 15, 2005, under section 2903(e) of such Act, the 
Secretary of Defense shall not close Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED SEPT. 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,906
<SECURITIES>                                    16,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,599
<PP&E>                                           9,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,001
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,147
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,290
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,722
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 16 , 2014

. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01389

- CV

CAROL ODOM AND SENIO R CARE CENTERS, L.L. C. A/K/A FAIR PARK SENIOR CARE CENTERS , Appellants V. WATT CARROLL, JR , Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 00114

- E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stodd art Before the Court is appellants’ December 9, 2014, unopposed motion to dismiss

the appeal. In the motion, the parties state they have resolved all matters in dispute between them

and request we dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the ap peal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a).

141389F.P05 / Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CAROL ODOM AND SENIOR CARE CENTERS, L.L.C. A/K/A FAIR PARK SENIOR CARE CENTERS, Appellants

No. 05

- 14

- 01389

- CV V.

WATT CARROLL, JR, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 00114

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Francis and Evans participating.

Bas ed on appellants’ December 9, 2014, unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, and in accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 16th da y of December, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
HAGLER BAILLY, INC. AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY B REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>


<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         9,656
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  68,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,604
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               83,520
<PP&E>                                         22,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          39,165
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<COMMON>                                       179
<OTHER-SE>                                     72,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,209
<SALES>                                        181,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,981
<CGS>                                          147,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  192,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,212)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,924)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.58)



</TABLE>