alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Douglas FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Angie CRESPO, f/k/a Angie Fernandez, Appellee.

No. 3D11-2301.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 5, 2012.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 2012.

Douglas Fernandez, in proper person, and Jordan S. Kosches, Miami-Dade, for appellant.

Alfaro & Fernandez, P.A. and Elbert Alfaro, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The trial judge denied the appellant the attorney’s fees to which he was entitled as the prevailing party under the governing marital settlement agreement solely on the ground that his claim had not been properly pled as required by *Stockman v. Downs,*573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991). That order is reversed because the record establishes the applicability of the exception to the *Stockman*doctrine which applies when the opposing party raises no objection to a clearly asserted claim to fees. *See Stockman,*573 So.2d at 838; *Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A.,*585 So.2d 934 (Fla.1991); *Save on Cleaners of Pembroke II v. Verde Pines City Ctr. Plaza, LLC,*14 So.3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); *Storob v. Sphere Drake Ins.,*730 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); *Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Coyle,*624 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); *Brown v. Gardens by the Sea S. Condo. Ass’n,*424 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); *Mainlands of Tamarac by the Gulf Unit No. 4 Ass’n v. Morris,*388 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

The order denying the appellant recoverable costs is unsupported by the law and is also reversed. *See First Protective Ins. Co. v. Featherston,*978 So.2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); *Arellano v. Bisson,*761 So.2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); *Oriental Imports, Inc. v. Alilin,*559 So.2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the orders under review are reversed for the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs in favor of the appellant.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 156 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 156

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the payment of 
   dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former 
 prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the 
   same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and 
indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who 
                          die after that date.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Holden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the payment of 
   dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former 
 prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the 
   same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and 
indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who 
                          die after that date.

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

    That section 1318(b)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``who died after September 30, 1999,''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141042) pertaining to theTm Bioscience Corporation Share Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134450) pertaining to theLuminex Corporation 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and the Luminex Corporation 2006 Management Stock Purchase Plan, in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46686) pertaining to the 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan of Luminex Corporation,in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87918) pertaining to the 2001 Broad-Based Stock Option Plan of LuminexCorporation and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-118772) pertaining to the Balthrop Non-Qualified StockOption Agreement of Luminex Corporation, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-159382) pertaining to theAmended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-151691) of ourreports dated February 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Luminex Corporation, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Luminex Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Austin, Texas
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Cresud S.A.C.I.F.
y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), Alejandro G. Elsztain,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
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 results of
operations of the Company.











Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A.October
31, 2017
By:
/s/ Alejandro
G. ElsztainAlejandro
G. ElsztainChief
Executive Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Howard Carl McLEES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-6510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 31, 2011.

Howard Carl McLees, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motions and amended motions for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He makes sev*974eral arguments on appeal, only one of which has merit. He argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for affirmatively misadvising him that he was not eligible for conditional release supervision without attaching portions of the record that conclusively refuted the claim. We agree and reverse and remand for record attachments that conclusively refute the claim or for an evidentiary hearing. *See Colombo v. State,*972 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.
(logo)

Mellon Mortgage Company

Mellon Mortgage Company
3100 Travis Street
Houston, Texas 77006.3699

Mailing Address:
PO Box 2885
Houston, Texas 77252-2885

713 525 8000

January 23, 1998

As of and for the year ended  December 31,  1997,  Mellon  Mortgage  Company has
complied in all material  respects  with the minimum  servicing set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers,  except for minimum servicing  standard L1 related to ensuring
that all custodial and clearing  accounts are  reconciled on a monthly basis and
that reconciling  items are cleared in a timely manner.  As of and for this same
period,  Mellon Mortgage  Company had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of
$200,000,000  and errors and omissions  policy in the amount of $35,000,000  and
did not receive a notice from it's insurer (Aetna) that the insurer has taken or
intends to take action to cancel, reduce, not renew, or restrictively modify the
fidelity or mortgagee's E&O policies for any reason.

Sincerely,

Steven G. Froseth
Chief Financial Officer
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00460-CR

NO. 09-19-00461-CR

__________________

DOMINIQUE JUDGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 19-31133, 19-31134

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 21, 2019, the trial court sentenced Dominique Judge1 on 

convictions for aggravated robbery. Judge filed a notice of appeal on December 23, 

2019. The trial court entered certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal, in 

which the court certified that these are plea-bargain cases and the defendant has no 

 1

The trial court’s certifications refer to Judge as “Dominique St Quincey 

Judge.” 
2

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the 

trial court’s certifications to the Court of Appeals. On December 31, 2019, we 

notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeals unless the appellant 

established grounds for continuing the appeals. No response has been filed. Because 

the records do not contain certifications that show the defendant has the right of 

appeal, we must dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeals.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

 PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on January 28, 2020

Opinion Delivered January 29, 2020

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROY BLANKENSHIP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:02-cr-00097; 2:04-cv-01020) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel David Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roy Blankenship seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blankenship has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Clyvia Inc. - Exhibit 10.21






Loan Agreement

Between

Clyvia Technology GmbH 
Friedrich-List-Allee 10 
D-41844
Wegberg-Wildenrath

- In the following referred to as “Clyvia” -

and

BTec Holding AG 
Rheinweg 1 
CH – 8200 Schaffhausen

- In the following referred to as “BTec” -

Preamble

Clyvia has developed a depolymerization system. In light of the
capital required by Clyvia, the parties enter into the following contract.

1.

BTec shall grant to Clyvia a loan in the amount of EURO
30,000.00 (in words: thirty thousand EURO). Clyvia hereby acknowledges
receipt.

2.

The loan shall be paid out into the account of Clyvia
Technology GmbH, Wegberg-Wildenrath.

3.

The interest payable on the loan amount shall be 10% p.a. 

Page 1 of 2




4.

The loan may be canceled by giving one months notice at the end
of a month, however, not before end of the 90th calendar day
following the receipt of the full loan amount in the account specified under
item 2.

5.

Clyvia is entitled to pay back the loan amount including
interest at any time into the account of BTec. This does not require
cancellation.

6.

As collateral for the loan, Inventa shall assign to BTec
225,000 (in words: two hundred and twenty five thousand) shares of Clyvia Inc.,
USA. BTec is entitled to freely sell the shares in whole or in part, if Inventa
does not or does not fully pay back the loan amount plus interest after the due
date; otherwise, BTec is obligated to return them to Inventa.

7.

This contract shall exclusively be governed by the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany with the exception of the United Nations Convention
on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

8.

Any disputes arising under or in connection with this agreement
shall be conclusively resolved according to the rules of arbitration of the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in the current version at the time of
the arbitration proceeding by one or several arbitrators appointed according to
these rules of arbitration with under preclusion of the due process of law The
court of arbitration may also make a binding decision regarding the validity of
this arbitration process.

The place of arbitration shall be Zurich.

Additionally to the ICC rules and regulations, as well as any
other binding rules the arbitration proceeding shall be governed by German
law.

The parties agree that German shall be the language utilized in
any arbitration proceeding.

Wegberg, August 12, 2008

	[Signature] 	 	[Signature] 	 
	Clyvia Technology GmbH 	 	BTec Holding AG 	 
	Dieter Wagels 	 	C. Stampfli Dr. Niederbacher 	 


Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #12283 and #12284]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION: 

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of MISSOURI (FEMA-1934-DR), dated 08/17/2010.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.                    

*Incident Period:*                         06/12/2010 through 07/31/2010.                    

# DATES: 

*Effective Date:*                         09/20/2010.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/18/2010.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/17/2011.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of MISSOURI, dated 08/17/2010, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Perry.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-24397 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Craig MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-684.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 20, 2011.

*326Craig Mack, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed.*As to ground one, *see Solorzano v. State,*25 So.3d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); as to ground two, *see Bryant v. State,*901 So.2d 810, 821-22 (Fla.2005); *Corp v. Sec., Fla. Dept. of Corr.,*2010 WL 3469506 at *13 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 31, 2010); as to ground three, *see Zack v. State,*911 So.2d 1190, 1198 n. 3 (Fla.2005).

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-K of PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin F. McLaughlin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|/s/KEVIN F. MCLAUGHLINName: Kevin F. McLaughlin
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 15, 2004 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and will be retained by PRAECIS
PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

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

---

QuickLinks
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1515 

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to treat 

certain communities as metropolitan cities for purposes of the community 

development block grant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mr. COSTELLO (for himself and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 to treat certain communities as metropolitan 

cities for purposes of the community development block 

grant 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. METROPOLITAN CITIES. 

4 Paragraph (4) of section 102(a) of the Housing and 

5 Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302) 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new sen7 tence: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this para8 graph, with respect to any fiscal year beginning after the 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1515 IH

1 date of the enactment of this sentence, the cities of Alton 

2 and Granite City, Illinois, shall be considered metropolitan 

3 cities for purposes of this title.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
1 Cite as: 56 2 U

. S. ____ (2011)

Statement of ALITO , J. 

## SUPREME CO URT O F THE UNI TED STATES
ROB ERT HUBE R ET U X

. v. NEW JERSEY DE PARTMENT OF ENVIR O N M ENTAL P R OT ECTI O N

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JER S EY , APPELLAT E DIVISION
No. 10–3 88. Dec i ded M a r c h21, 2011 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Statement of J USTICE ALITO , with whom T HE C HIEF J USTICE , J USTICE S CALI A , and J USTICE T HOMAS join, respecting t h e denial of certiorari. Our cases recognize a limited exception to t h e Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for searches of bus i

nesses in “ c losely regulated industries.” See, e.g. , New Yorkv. Bu rge r , 482 U. S. 691, 699–703 (1 987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The thinking is that, other things bein g equal, the “expectation of privacy in comm er
cial premises” is significantly less than the “e xpectation i n an individual’s home.” Id. , at 700. And where a bus ines s operates in an industry with a “long tradition of clos e government supervision”—liquor dealers and pawnbroke r s are classic examples—the expe cta tion of privacy becomes “particularl y attenuate d .” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, a New Je rsey appellate court a p plied this doctrine to uphold a warrantless search by astate envi

ronmental official of Robert and Michelle Huber’s ba ck

yard. No. A–5874–07T3, 2010 WL 173533, *9–*10 (Super. Ct. N. J., App. Di v., Jan. 20, 2010) (perc u riam)

. The Hubers’ res i dential property conta i ns wetlands protected by a New Jersey environmental statute. See N. J. Sta t

. Ann. §13:9B–1 et s e q. (West 200 3 and Supp. 2010). Ac

cording to t h e court below, the presence of these wetlands brought th e Hubers’ yard“direc tly undert h e regulatory arm” of the State “just as much” as if the yard had been2 HUBER v. NE W JERS EY DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO N Statement of ALITO , J. involved in a “regulated industry.” 2010 WL 173533, *10. This Court has not suggested that a State, by imposin g heavy regulations on t h e use of p r ivately owned residen

tial property, may escape the Fourth Amen dment’s wa r
rant requirement. But because t h is case comes to us on review of a decision by a state intermediate appellate court, I ag r ee that tod a y’s denial of certiorariis appropri

ate. See t h is Court’s Rule 10. It does b e a rmentioning, however, th at “denial of certi orari does not constitute a n expression of any opinion on the merits.” Boumedienev. Bush , 549 U. S. 1328, 1329 (2007) (Stevens and K ENN E DY , JJ., statement respecting denial of certiorari).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Graley ROBERSON.

No. 2012-KO-0086.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Roberson, Graley; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 257824; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-697-KA.

Denied.