alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rajendra JOSHI, Appellant, v. Raksha JOSHI, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 19, 2011.

Leslie Thomas of Longwell & Gentle, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Neva M. Kelaher, Winter Park, for Ap-pellee.

PALMER, J.

Rajendra Joshi (husband) appeals the trial court’s final dissolution judgment. We affirm in all aspects except one.

The husband argues that the trial court erred in finding that he took for himself an $1,800.00 stimulus check distributed to the marital household as part of the 2008 Economic Stimulus Program. We agree.

The record demonstrates that Raksha Joshi (wife) testified that she never received a check from the Economic Stimulus Program. Thus, the record contains no support for the conclusion that a stimulus check was ever received. Because there is no evidence to support the court’s assignment of an $1,800.00 value to that check, the trial court abused its discretion by allocating the value thereof to the husband’s equitable distribution. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for removal of the $1,800.00 stimulus check from the equitable distribution scheme, and for any adjustments necessary in the equitable distribution scheme as a result of that deletion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

MONACO and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Maurice WILLIAMS.

No. 2011-KK-1889.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 8, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 504-119; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-968.

Stay Denied; Writ Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Gregory NAVARRE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-2689.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 7, 2011.

In re Navarre, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 77-FELY-78-517.

The application is transferred to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion for post-conviction relief as relator shows by Inmate’s Request for Legal/Indigent Mail receipt that the application was submitted on or about October 17, 2011. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment. A copy of the application is attached.
#### Richard Lee TERRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 2010.

Richard Lee Terry, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, CORTINAS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

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 postconviction record, *see*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(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 postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Robert W. Winston IIIName:
    
    Robert W. Winston, IIITitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    August 5, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58409-58410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review F30s, R03.
    Date: October 18, 2010.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch,

[[Page 58410]]

National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, NIH 6701 Democracy 
Blvd, room 672, MSC 4878, Bethesda, md 20892-4878, 301-594-4809, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23949 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
NO. 07-06-0254-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JULY 24, 2006

	______________________________

	JANET K. FERGUSON D/B/A MASTER CLEAN CARPET

	& UPHOLSTERY CLEANERS, APPELLANT

	V.

	 BEST PUBLICATIONS, L.L.P., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 56,613-C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Janet K. Ferguson, d/b/a/ Master Clean Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners, perfected appeal from a summary judgment in a suit brought by appellee, Best Publications, L.L.P.  This court has received a certified copy of an order granting Ferguson’s motion for new trial, raising a question concerning our jurisdiction over this appeal.  We are obligated to determine, sua sponte, our jurisdiction over an appeal.  New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. 1990). 

	Perfection of appeal does not prevent the grant of a new trial within the time permitted by Rule of Civil Procedure 329b.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d), (e).  Rule 329b(c) provides a motion for new trial is overruled by operation of law if “not determined by written order signed within seventy-five days after the judgment was signed.”  Rule 329b(e) extends a trial court’s plenary power to grant a new trial thirty days after any timely filed motion for new trial is overruled.  The limited record before us indicates the challenged judgment was signed March 30, 2006.  Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law June 13, 2006.  By virtue of rules 329b(c) and (e) the trial court had plenary power to grant a new trial until July 13, 2006.  It did so on July 11, 2006.

	The effect of the trial court’s order is to vacate the original judgment, In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. 2005), and put the case in the position as if there had been no trial.  Jordan v. Bustamante, 158 S.W.3d 29, 36 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).  Because a final judgment is a prerequisite to our appellate jurisdiction, Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001), we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

							Per Curiam
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1446 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow an increased deferment period 

for loans under the 7(b) loan program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. JINDAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow an increased 

deferment period for loans under the 7(b) loan program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED DEFERMENT PERIOD. 

4 Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) 

5 is amended by inserting after subsection (d) the following: 

6 ‘‘(e) INCREASED DEFERMENT AUTHORIZED.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In making loans under sec8 tion 7(b), the Administrator may provide, to the per9 son receiving the loan, an option to defer repayment 

10 on the loan. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1446 IH

1 ‘‘(2) PERIOD.—A deferment under paragraph 

2 (1) may not exceed 4 years. 

3 ‘‘(3) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO HURRI4 CANE KATRINA AND HURRICANE RITA VICTIMS.— 

5 This subsection applies retroactively to any loan 

6 under section 7(b) that was made— 

7 ‘‘(A) in response to Hurricane Katrina or 

8 Hurricane Rita of 2005; and 

9 ‘‘(B) for a small business located in a 

10 county or parish designated by the Adminis11 trator as a disaster area by reason of such Hur12 ricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, as applica13 ble.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, 

as the ‘‘Buck Owens Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1384 EH

1 SECTION 1. BUCK OWENS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakers4 field, California, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Buck Owens Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Buck Owens Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice’’. kersfield, California, as the ‘‘Buck Owens Post al Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in Ba-
Exhibit 3.1 (iv)

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OFRESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OFFIRST VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

 

**         FIRST VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**(the“Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), **DOES HEREBY CERTIFY**:

**         FIRST:**  The name of the Corporation is First VirtualCommunications, Inc.

**         SECOND****:** The date on which the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporationwas originally filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware isOctober 29, 1997.

**         THIRD****:** This Certificate of Amendment amends certain provisions of theCertificate of Incorporation of the Company and has been duly adopted by theBoard of Directors of the Corporation acting in accordance with provisions ofSections 141 and 242 of the DGCL, and further adopted in accordance withthe provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the DGCL by the stockholders ofthe Company.

**         FOURTH****: **Article IV, paragraph A. of the Certificateof Incorporation shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

“This corporation is authorized to issue two classesof stock to be designated, respectively, ***“Common Stock”*** and ***“Preferred Stock.”*** The total number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issueis One Hundred Five Million (105,000,000) shares.  One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock,each having a par value of one-tenth of one cent ($0.001).  Five Million (5,000,000) shares shall bePreferred Stock, each having a par value of one-tenth of one cent ($0.001).”

**         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** First Virtual Communications, Inc. has caused thisCertificate of Amendment to be signed by its Chief Financial Officer this 19thday of June, 2001.

**                                                                                                 ****FIRST VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

                                                                                                        By:/s/ Randy Acres                                                                

                                                                                                                    RandyAcres,                                                                                                                    ChiefFinancial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Pehong Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the "Company"), and Shin-Yuan Tzou, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
 
 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 6thday of August, 2010.


/s/  Pehong ChenPehong Chen

Chief Executive Officer
  /s/  Shin-Yuan TzouShin-Yuan Tzou

Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### In re Tyler P. GRAY.

No. 2011-OB-0847.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 4, 2011.

ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR.

PER CURIAM.*

| jOn his application to sit for the Louisiana Bar Examination, petitioner, Tyler *606Gray, disclosed that he has been diagnosed as alcohol dependent. After petitioner successfully passed the bar exam, he and the Committee on Bar Admissions (“Committee”) filed a joint petition for conditional admission, in which it was represented that petitioner has maintained sobriety for the last two years. Nevertheless, the parties acknowledged that petitioner did not execute a recovery agreement with the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP) until January 15, 2011.

Our jurisprudence holds that an applicant suffering from alcohol dependence will not be considered for admission until he or she has demonstrated at least a one-year period of sobriety, has entered into a recovery contract with LAP, and has complied with the terms and conditions of that contract.1*See, e.g., In re: Gulick, 09-0869*(La.5/15/09), 8 So.3d 555 (“[pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9(D)(13), petitioner may not re-apply for admission until he can demonstrate at least a one-year period of sobriety and compliance with the terms and conditions of his contract with the Lawyers Assistance Program, and in no event less than one year 12irom the date of this judgment”). Because petitioner has not satisfied these requirements, he is not eligible for admission at this time.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the joint petition for conditional admission be and hereby is denied. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9(D)(13), petitioner may. not re-apply for admission until he can demonstrate at least a one-year period of sobriety and compliance with the terms and conditions of his contract with the Lawyers Assistance Program.

ADMISSION DENIED.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

1

. We acknowledge petitioner has produced some anecdotal evidence of sobriety. However, in cases of alcohol dependence, the minimal one year period of sobriety must be established through objective means, such as a LAP contract or other approved rehabilitation procedures which include random testing and consistent monitoring.
**Exhibit 4.1**

(English Summary) 

LEASE 

Parties: 

SCIENCE PARK ADMINISTRATION (the “Lessor”) 

UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION (the “Lessee”) 

Leased Premises: 

The government-owned land containing 27,898 square meters, located on Science Park at lot no. 20-22,Ko-Kuan Section, Hsinchu. 

Lease Term: 

Commencing on March 1, 2007 and expiring on December 31, 2026. 

Rental: 

The rental shall be forty-seven New Taiwan Dollars and six cents (NT$47.06) per square meter per month. 

The total amount of monthly rent shall be one million three hundred twelve thousand and eight hundred eighty New Taiwan Dollars (NT$1,312,880).

Lessee shall pay the rental amount of NT$1,312,880 each month. The first month’s rent shall be paid to Lessor on the commencement dateof this Lease. Lessee shall pay the rent to Lessor each month thereafter in accordance with the procedures set forth by Lessor in this Lease and shall separately calculate and pay business tax. 

During the term of the Lease, should the government adjust the land price in accordance with relevant regulations, Lessee agrees to a proportionateadjustment of the rent by the Lessor, the adjustment of which is to be made effective in the month following the adjustment by the government. 

Termination by Lessor: 

Lessor may terminate the Lease at any time if any of following shall happen: 

a. Lessee is disqualified from operating in or ordered by the Lessor to withdraw from the Science Park; 

b. Lessee violates any term or provision of this Lease pertaining to the use of the land; 

c. Lessee has defaulted in the payment of the monthly rent for two or more years; 

d. Lessee fails to apply for a construction license within three months from execution of this Lease; after the Lessor has set a time limit for suchapplication and the Lessee fails to apply for such license within such time limit; or the application is inadequate and the Lessee has been ordered to supplement the application and fails to do so within such time limit; or 

e. Lessee violates any term or provision of this Lease pertaining to construction measures. 

Miscellaneous: 

Upon expiration, Lessee shall sell its buildings, equipment and permanent fixtures onthe leased property or shall dismantle such buildings, equipment and permanent fixtures and abandon all facilities inside of such premises, and return the land to Lessor. 

 

1 

This Lease shall be effective from the commencement date, which shall be the earlier of the executiondate of the Lease, or the starting date of the Lease. 

Should any suit arise from this Lease, Lessor and Lessee agree that the governing lawshall be the laws of the Republic of China and the Taiwan Hsinchu District Court shall be the competent court of jurisdiction in the first instance. 

 

2
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 

10, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00536-CV

IN RE A.B., Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

309th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-76908 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On July 2, 2018, relator A.B. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, 

judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County, to set aside the June 13, 2018 

temporary restraining order and June 27, 2018 order granting the motion to extend 
2 

the temporary restraining order, signed by the Honorable Judge Beverly B. Malazzo, 

associate judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County.

Relator has not shown that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny relator’s motion for 

temporary relief. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Jewell.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,786
<SECURITIES>                                    37,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,277
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,980
<PP&E>                                          16,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,745
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,074
<SALES>                                         36,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,217
<CGS>                                            1,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   809
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
        

</TABLE>