alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE ex rel. Richard LANGLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0776.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Langley, Richard; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 359-302; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0318.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
#### Edwige GUERRIER, Appellant, v. JOHN KNOX VILLAGE OF FLORIDA INC., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.

No. 4D10-2420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 2011.

Edwige M. Guerrier, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

M. Elaine Howard, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Suarez v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n,*871 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
#### CATAHOULA PARISH POLICE JURY v. CONCORDIA PARISH POLICE JURY, et al.

No. 2010-CC-2486.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Bridges (Secretary), Cynthia et al.; Department of Revenue; State of Louisiana; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 040773; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00932.

Denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000557

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

MICHAEL T. WILLENBORG, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CRIMINAL NO. 1CPC-17-0001516)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, for the court1)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Summary Disposition Order

of the court filed on February 23, 2024, is corrected by

replacing "WILLENBOEG" with "WILLENBORG" in the case caption on

page 1 at line 5 from the top so that as corrected, the text

reads: "MICHAEL T. WILLENBORG, Defendant-Appellant".

The Clerk of the Court is directed to incorporate the

foregoing change in the original summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 23, 2024.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Acting Chief Judge

1

Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000557

23-FEB-2024

11:36 AM

Dkt. 122 OCOR
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Brett S. HOLLOWAY.

No. 2011-K-1308.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Holloway, Brett S.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 444262; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1253.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Richard JORDAN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2722.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Jordan, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 328-280; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1497.

Denied. Untimely, non-cognizable, and repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La. C.Cr.P.art. 930.4(D).
#### STATE ex rel. Corey D. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1077.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Williams, Corey David; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 273523; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0338.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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.




/s/
                H. Stewart
                ParkerH.
                Stewart ParkerPresident,
                  Chief
                  Executive Officer and Director
                August 9,
                  2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
#### S.C., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 2, 2011.

S.C., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See State v. J.H.,*898 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
IN CONNECTION WITH ITS INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING IN JULY 1997, THE COMPANY
CONVERTED FROM AN S CORPORATION TO A C CORPORATION. EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA ARE
BASED ON PRO FORMA NET INCOME WHICH WAS CALCULATED AS IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN A
C CORPORATION FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                          46,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,341
<INVENTORY>                                      6,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,545
<PP&E>                                          47,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,591
<SALES>                                        341,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               341,097
<CGS>                                          136,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,787
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,689)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR LEE TILLMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-92-270, CA-95-398-3-MU) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Tillman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion for an extension of time in which to respond to Appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictionbecause the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Appellant's motion for the preparation of transcripts at the Government's expense and 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
ADVANTA                                                Advanta
                                                       Mortgage
                                                       P.O. Box 509011
                                                       San Diego, CA 92150-9011
March 27, 1997
                                                       16875 West Bernardo Drive
                                                       San Diego, CA 92127
                                                       (619) 674-1800
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. (338)
Tim Knight
11000 Brokenland Parkway
Columbia, MD 21004-3562



RE: ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


Pursuant to that  certain LOAN  SERVICING  AGREEMENT  ("Agreement")  dated as of
DECEMBER 1, 1996, Southern Pacific Trust 1996-4. , I, William P. Garland, hereby
certify that (I) a review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
year  and  the  performance   under  this  Agreement  has  been  made  under  my
supervision,  and (II) to the best of my  knowledge,  based on such review,  the
Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement for such year.



Sincerely,


/s/ William P. Garland
William P. Garland
Sr. Vice President, Loan Service

WPG/cg


cc:     Mr. James L. Shreero
        Annette Aguirre, Esq.
        Mr. Mark Casale
#### E. R. Flewellen et al. v. B. M. Pace.

(No. 1613.*)*

Appeal from Earns County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§57. *Distress warrant bond; reconvention for damages on; insufficient verdict.*Elewellen, who was the landlord of Pace, brought this suit to recover rents and advances, and sued out a distress warrant, which was levied, etc. Pace pleaded in reconvention that the distress warrant had been 'illegally and unjustly sued out, and claimed damages, both actual and exemplary. The verdict of the jury was as follows: “We, the jury, find for plaintiff $162.20 for rents and supplies. We further find that the distress warrant was illegally sued out. We further find for the defendant Pace $300 as actual damages and $250 as vindictive damages.” Upon this verdict judgment was rendered in favor of Pace against Elewellen and the sureties upon his distress warrant bond for $387.74-, that being the amount in favor of Pace after deducting the amount found for Elewellen. *Held,*error. It is only when a distress warrant has been sued out *illegally and unjustly*that damages upon the bond can be recovered. Such is the condition of the bond. [R. S. art. 3113.] It is unlike the case of an attachment, where the condition of the bond is that the plaintiff will pay such damages as may be awarded against him for *wrongfully*suing out the attachment.’ [R. S. arts. 156-158.] If the jury had found that the writ was not only *illegally,*but was also *48
      *unjustly*sued out, the plaintiff and the sureties upon his bond would be liable for *actual,*and perhaps for *exemplary,*damages. But, the verdict having only found that the writ was illegally issued, did not warrant the jury in awarding any damages upon the bond, nor the court in adjudging any such damages.

December 5, 1883.

lie versed and remanded.
<PAGE>   1

ZMAX CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                                    Exhibit 23



SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           ADDITIONS
                                                            CHARGED
                                           BALANCE AT      TO COSTS                        BALANCE
                                            BEGINNING         AND                         AT END OF
            DESCRIPTION                     OF PERIOD       EXPENSES      DEDUCTIONS       PERIOD
            -----------                     ---------       --------      ----------       ------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>           <C>             <C>
For the year ended December 31, 1998,
    Allowance for doubtful accounts ...     $     --       $ 17,160       $     --       $ 17,160

For the year ended December 31, 1999,
    Allowance for doubtful accounts ...     $ 17,160       $ 95,840       $  3,000       $110,000
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Keynote Systems, Inc.:

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-107442, 333-85242, 333-73244, 333-47980, and 333-87791) of Keynote Systems, Inc. of our report dated December 10, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Keynote Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofSeptember 30, 2004 and 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2004, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, which report appears in the September 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Keynote Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries. 

 

Our report refers to the adoption of the provision of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, onOctober 1, 2001. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

Mountain View, California 

December 10, 2004
#### Dr. Massood JALLALI, Appellant, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D09-3401.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 16, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 2011.

Dr. Massood Jallali, Davie, pro se.

Richard A. Beauchamp and Jason R. Friedman of Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The plaintiffs third amended complaint alleged that the defendant committed fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that, after the defendant dismissed him from its school of osteopathic medicine, the defendant misrepresented to a national examining board as to whether he was “approved” or “not approved” to sit for a certification exam. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that it had not made any misrepresentation. At the hearing on the motion, the circuit court orally granted the motion. The court then entered a written final judgment containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the oral ruling.

The plaintiff raises two arguments on appeal. First, the plaintiff argues that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the defendant’s decisions as to his approval status were arbitrary and capricious and thereby constituted an actionable misrepresentation. Second, the plaintiff argues that the circuit court’s written final judgment was inconsistent with its oral ruling.

We affirm on both arguments. First, the defendant’s affidavits established without genuine issue of material fact that, regardless of the reasoning behind its decisions as to the plaintiffs approval status, its representations of those decisions to the examining board were true. Thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on both of the plaintiffs claims. *See Butler v. Yusem,*44 So.3d 102, 105 (Fla.2010) (first element of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim is “a false statement concerning a material fact”) (citation omitted); *Fla. Women’s Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Sultan,*
      *666656 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (first element of a negligent misrepresentation claim is “a misrepresentation of material fact”) (citation omitted).

Second, the circuit court’s written final judgment was not inconsistent with its oral ruling. The written final judgment merely provided more detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the oral ruling. *See Carter v. Capri Ventures, Inc.,*845 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“Review of the record demonstrates that the written summary judgment order is consistent with the oral ruling issued by the trial court at the conclusion of the summary judgment hearing.”).

*Affirmed.*

WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
TEN COM

	
- as
  tenants in common

	
 

	
UNIF
  GIFT MIN ACT -

	
_________________

	
CUSTODIAN

	
_________________


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
(Cust)

	
 

	
(Minor)


	
TEN ENT

	
- as tenants by the
  entireties

	
 

	
 

	
Under
  Uniform Gifts to Minors
Act ___________________

	
 


	
JT TEN

	
- as joint tenants with
  right of survivorship and not as tenants in common

	
 

	
 

	
                
(State)

	
 





Additional abbreviations may also be used though
not in the above list.


	
 

	
 


	
          For
  Value Received, __________________________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer onto


	
PLEASE
  INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

	
 


	
IDENTIFYING
  NUMBER OR ASSIGNEE

	
 









	
 

	
 


	
 


	
 


	
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


	
(PLEASE
  PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE)


	
 


	
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


	
 


	
 _______________________________________________________________________________ Shares
  of the stock represented
by the within Certificate, and do hereby
  irrevocably constitute and appoint


	
 


	
 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney
  
to transfer the said stock on the books
  of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


	
 


	
Dated
  ___________________________________________








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
_________________________________________________________________


	
 

	
NOTICE:

	
THE
  SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
  PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.






Signature(s) Guaranteed


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
By

	


	
 

	



	
 

	


	
 


	
 

	
THE SIGNATURES SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN
  ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH
  MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM) PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17ad-15.

	
 






	
 

	
 


	
TRANSFER AGENT:

	
Manhattan Transfer Registrar Co.
P. O. Box 756

Miller Place, New York 11764
(631)928-7655
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I, Paul
DePond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge, the
Annual Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify
Technology Corporation.






By:
            /s/
      Paul F. DePondName:
            Paul
      F. DePondTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)


Date:
December 30, 2009






I,
Gerald W. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge,
the Annual Report of Notify Technology Corporation on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Notify
Technology Corporation.





By:
            /s/
      Gerald W. RiceName:
            Gerald
      W. RiceTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)


Date:
December 30, 2009






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Notify Technology Corporation and will be retained by Notify Technology
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.