alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Linette Williams, Appellant, v Shawn Tronchin et al., Respondents.

[775 NYS2d 157]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated May 3, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident (s*ee Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affidavit of the plaintiffs chiropractor submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact *(see Trotter v Hart,*285 AD2d 772 [2001]; *Williams v*
      *699
      *Ciaramella,*250 AD2d 763 [1998]; *Cabri v Myung Soo Park,*260 AD2d 525 [1999]; *Waldman v Dong Kook Chang,*175 AD2d 204 [1991]; *Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assoc.,*239 AD2d 394 [1997]).

Moreover, the plaintiffs statement that she was unable to return to work for six months following the accident was not supported by any competent medical evidence that she was unable to perform substantially all of her daily activities for not less than 90 of the first 180 days as a result of the subject accident *(see Sainte-Aime v Ho,*274 AD2d 569 [2000]; *Jackson v New York City Tr. Auth.,*273 AD2d 200 [2000]; *Greene v Miranda,*272 AD2d 441 [2000]; *Arshad v Gomer,*268 AD2d 450 [2000]; *Bennett v Reed,*263 AD2d 800 [1999]; *DiNunzio v County of Suffolk,*256 AD2d 498, 499 [1998]).

Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. 87-6193.

#### Cook *v.*Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,887,971
<SECURITIES>                                   360,480
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,313,960
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,123,581)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,476,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,991,759
<PP&E>                                      32,079,849
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,502,957)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,544,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,246,551
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,651,867
<COMMON>                                    86,782,015
<OTHER-SE>                                     477,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,544,236
<SALES>                                    108,675,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           108,675,572
<CGS>                                       68,793,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,955,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             796,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,374,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,746,773
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,627,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,627,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.80  AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT  This Amendment No. 2
(this Amendment), dated as of January 12, 2009, amends that
certain Severance Agreement (the Agreement) entered into on April 4,
2008, by and between Force Protection, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company),
and Shelia Boyd (the Executive).  WHEREAS, in order to correct a scriveners error in
the language in Section 5 of the Agreement, the Company and the Executive
desire to enter into this Amendment to amend certain provisions of the
Agreement.  NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in
consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements in the
Agreement and herein, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:  1.Capitalized Terms. 
Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.  2.Section 5 of the Agreement is amended in
its entirety to read as follows:  5.            
Payments Upon Non-Qualifying Termination of
Employment.If
the Executives employment with the Company shall terminate by reason of a
Nonqualifying Termination, then the Company shall pay to the Executive (or the
Executives beneficiary or estate) within thirty (30) days following the Date
of Termination, a lump-sum cash amount equal to the Accrued Amounts (other than
the amount described in Section 3(a)(ii) if the Executive is
terminated by the Company for Cause) and provide the Other Benefits.  3.Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed (including by facsimile transmission confirmed
promptly thereafter by actual delivery of executed counterparts) in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  4.Governing Law.  This
Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with,
the internal laws of the State of South Carolina without regard to the
principle of conflicts of laws.  5.Headings.  Section headings
are for convenience only and shall not be considered a part of this Amendment.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed,
effective as of the date first written above.   FORCE
  PROTECTION, INC.By:
  /s/
  Lenna Ruth MacdonaldName: Lenna Ruth MacdonaldTitle: Chief Strategy Officer, General
  Counsel & Corporate SecretaryEXECUTIVEBy:
  /s/
  Shelia BoydName:
  Shelia BoydTitle:
  Vice President, Human Resources
#### Jennifer CARDINAL, Appellant, v. Terrance COTANT, Appellee.

No. 5D09-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 4, 2009.

Jennifer Cardinal, Farmington, MI, pro se.

Terrance E. Cotant, Orlando, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The former wife, Jennifer Cardinal, appeals the supplemental final judgment rendered by the trial judge after an evi-dentiary hearing in which the trial court revoked the former wife’s status as primary residential parent to the children of *859this marriage, reset visitation, modified child support, and made other changes to the previously ordered conditions for the care and well-being of the children. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and have found no abuse of discretion or legal error committed by the trial court. We note that we have been hampered in our review by the lack of a transcript of the proceedings or any approved substitute for it, even though the court considered the testimony of at least four witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew E. WETZEL.

No. 2012-KO-0052.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Wetzel, Andrew D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 472552; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 1129.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995               OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,633                     1,862
<SECURITIES>                                         0                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,426                    14,895
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (348)                     (450)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,395                     4,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,922                    22,893
<PP&E>                                         104,691                   123,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,982)                  (55,248)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,581                    96,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,568                    23,722
<BONDS>                                         29,922                    38,418
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                         0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                         0
<COMMON>                                             0                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,538                    27,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,581                    96,704
<SALES>                                         11,397                    15,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,138                    90,658
<CGS>                                            7,783                    10,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,208                    40,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,481                    39,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   348                       450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,092                     3,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,357                     7,245
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,238                     2,916
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,449                    10,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                         0
<CHANGES>                                            0                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,119                     4,329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53<F1>                   .74<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53<F2>                   .74<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EPS-Primary unknown
<F2>EPS-Diluted unknown
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. J. C. Whitener et al.

(No. 1554.)

October 20, 1883.

Appeal from. Bowie County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 15. *Injunction; jurisdiction of county court; amount in controversy.*Whitener had a judgment in justice’s court against the appellant, for the sum of $125, upon which execution issued and was levied upon certain property of appellant valued at $400. Appellant obtained an injunction from the county judge enjoining the enforcement of the judgment and execution, which injunction, upon hearing, was dissolved and the suit dismissed. Held, that the amount in controversy in the injunction suit was the amount of the justice’s judgment, and not the value of the property levied on, and that the county judge had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction, wherefore it was properly dissolved and dismissed. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1240.] This case is distinguished from one in which a suit is pending in the county court, and the writ issues to enforce the jurisdiction of said court. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 1209, 1240.]

Affirmed.
538 A.2d 641

#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant *v.*Thomas Michael McCoy, Appellee.

Submitted on briefs December 18, 1987,

to Judges Doyle, Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three.

*Harold H. Cramer,*Assistant Counsel, with him, *Martin, Burman,*Assistant Counsel, *Spencer A. Manthorpe,*Assistant Chief Counsel, *John L. Heaton,*Chief Counsel, and *Henry G. Barr,*General Counsel, for appellant.

*217
      *Catherine A. Peterson, Greitzer and Locks,*for appellee.

March 2, 1988:

Opinion by

Senior Judge Kalish,

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT), appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which sustained the appeal of Thomas Michael McCoy (appellee) from the suspension of his operating privileges, for driving without a license. We reverse and reinstate the suspension of appellees operating privileges.

Appellee was convicted on July 3, 1985, of violating section 1501(a) of the Vehicle Code (Code), .75 Pa. C. S. § 1501(a), driving without a license. On February 18, 1986, more than seven months after conviction, appellee received notice from DOT that his license was suspended.

The trial court rescinded the order of DOT, holding that DOT’s notification was untimely, relying on *Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Lewis,*506 Pa. 96, 484 A.2d 370 (1984). This reliance was misplaced. *Lewis*dealt with the accumulation of points and provided that suspension shall be made within six months following conviction and that failure to give such notice shall prohibit suspension, pursuant to section 1551 of the Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §1551 (notice of suspension as a result of the accumulation of points).

Here, on the other hand, appellee is not faced with a suspension due to points accumulation. Section 1501 of the Code provides that a driver must have a license to drive a motor vehicle, and section 1532(b)(2) of the Code provides that DOT shall suspend the operating privileges of any driver upon receiving a certified record of a driver’s conviction under section 1501(a) of the Code. Section 1532 of the Code is distinguished from *218section 1551 in that it does not contain notice requirements as does section 1551. *Horner v. Department of Transportation,*59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 519, 430 A.2d 387 (1981).

Accordingly, we reverse. The- suspension of appellees operating privileges is reinstated.

Order

Now, March 2, 1988, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in No. 3794, March Term, 1986, dated August 13, 1986, is reversed. The suspension of appellees operating privileges is reinstated.
Exhibit 32





STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-QSB") of Guaranty Financial Corporation (the "Company"), we, William E. Doyle, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, and Tara Y. Harrison, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



(a) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.





August 14, 2003

By: /s/ William E. Doyle

William E. Doyle, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer





August 14, 2003

By: /s/ Tara Y. Harrison

Tara Y. Harrison

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Guaranty Financial Corporation and will be retained by Guaranty Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Thomas WALSH v. STIPP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 13154.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 5, 1960.

Decided May 13, 1960.

Matthew D. Mackie, Scranton, Pa., for appellant.

Harry P. O’Neill, Jr., Scranton, Pa., for appellee.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Our examination of the record in this case discloses evidence sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict in favor of the p-laintiff.

The Order of the District Court denying defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and alternative Motion for a New Trial will be affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. Gregory Charles WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1749.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Wilson, Gregory Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 251,036; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-677-KH.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR
THE NINE MONTH  PERIOD  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      3,368
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                15,954
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            0
<LOANS>                                    59,995
<ALLOWANCE>                                   373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             82,220
<DEPOSITS>                                 61,730
<SHORT-TERM>                               11,538
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           794
<LONG-TERM>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                  8,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             82,220
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             3,579
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             807
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              225
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            4,611
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          1,993
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2,571
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       2,040
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  72
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          (225)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             1,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    476
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  321
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                               7.66
<LOANS-NON>                                   953
<LOANS-PAST>                                    1
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               762
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              343
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  44
<RECOVERIES>                                    2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             373
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          373
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/Afor the three and six months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.January 25, 2007                                                                      /s/ John W. Paulson   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
                                                 BROADVISION, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
                                                (In thousands, except per share data)


<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                Nine Months Ended
                                                          September 30,                     September 30,
                                                   --------------------------          --------------------------
                                                     1997              1996              1997             1996
                                                   --------          --------          --------          --------
<S>                                                 <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>      
Statement of operations data:

    Net Loss                                        $ (1,691)         $ (2,674)         $ (6,287)         $ (6,552)
    Weighted average number of common
       and dilutive equivalent shares
       used in computations:
    Common Stock                                      20,284            19,889            20,169            14,664
    Preferred stock (as if converted)                   --                --                --               1,867
                                                    --------          --------          --------          --------

           Subtotal                                   20,284            19,889            20,169            16,531
                                                    --------          --------          --------          --------


Pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin No.83
    Preferred stock on as-if converted
       basis                                            --                --                --               1,311
    Stock options                                       --                --                --                 878
                                                    --------          --------          --------          --------

Shares used in computing net loss
    per share                                         20,284            19,889            20,169            18,720
                                                    --------          --------          --------          --------

Net loss per share                                  $  (0.08)         $  (0.13)         $  (0.31)         $  (0.35)
                                                    ========          ========          ========          ========
</TABLE>