alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rhonda *R.*WEBBER, Appellant, v. William A. WEBBER, Appellee.

No. 2D09-4127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 28, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 2011.

*823Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellant.

Christopher E. Yeazell of The Law Offices of Yeazell and Sweet, Clearwater, for Appellee.

MORRIS, Judge.

Rhonda D. Webber, the former wife, appeals a postdissolution order regarding modification of child custody, child support, and alimony. We affirm all but one of the issues without comment. However, the trial court erred by imposing a retroactive child support obligation on the former wife dating back to January 2007, and we must therefore reverse on that issue.

The former husband, William A. Webber, did not file his petition for modification of child support until May 25, 2007. Although it is undisputed that the parties’ then-minor daughter moved in with the former husband in January 2007, it is the date of the filing of the former husband’s petition that determines when the retroactive child support obligation began. Both the relevant statute and case law provide that a retroactive child support obligation may not be imposed prior to the filing of a petition seeking a modification. *See*§ 61.14(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006) (providing that court may modify support order “retroactively to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires”); *Musser v. Watkins,*752 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Absent the filing of a petition for modification, [the amount of child support] remain[s] fixed by [the] judgment [of dissolution] and cannot be modified prior to the time a proper petition for modification was filed.”); *Torres v. Torres,*739 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“It is settled that a trial court cannot modify a child support obligation absent a pleading or motion requesting such modification.”).

Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a retroactive child support obligation on the former wife dating back to January 2007. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to the trial court to enter an amended order reflecting that the former wife’s retroactive child support obligation began on May 25, 2007, the date of the filing of the former husband’s petition for modification.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
    THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
    JUNE 30, 1997  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
    REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997      APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1997      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                           2,932             2,932
<SECURITIES>                         0                 0 
<RECEIVABLES>                        0                 0 
<ALLOWANCES>                         0                 0 
<INVENTORY>                          0                 0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 6,011             6,011 
<PP&E>                         121,003           121,003 
<DEPRECIATION>                  28,590            28,590 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  98,424            98,424 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            3,848             3,848 
<BONDS>                         45,853            45,853 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0                 0 
<PREFERRED>                          0                 0 
<COMMON>                            40                40 
<OTHER-SE>                      24,800            24,800 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    98,424            98,424 
<SALES>                              0                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 5,784             4,478
<CGS>                                0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 4,030             3,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 777               604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    614               510
<INCOME-TAX>                         0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                614               510
<DISCONTINUED>                       0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0                 0
<CHANGES>                            0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       614               510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .24               .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .24               .13
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Journal Register Company (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the period ended December  31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), we, Robert M.  Jelenic,  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Julie A. Beck, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, 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), as applicable, 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/ Robert M.  JelenicRobert M.  JelenicChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMarch  16, 2007

/s/ Julie A. BeckJulie A. BeckSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch  16, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as may be expressly set forth by specific reference in any such filing. 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 Journal Register Company and will be retained by Journal Register Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7119 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to continue to pay educational assistance 

or subsistence allowances to eligible persons when educational institutions 

are temporarily closed, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2018 

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

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to continue to 

pay educational assistance or subsistence allowances to 

eligible persons when educational institutions are temporarily closed, and for other purposes. 

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


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7119 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SEC2 RETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CON3 TINUE TO PAY EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 

4 OR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES TO ELIGIBLE 

5 PERSONS WHEN EDUCATIONAL INSTITU6 TIONS ARE TEMPORARILY CLOSED. 

7 Section 3680(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) by striking the em dash at the end and in10 serting ‘‘during the following periods:’’; 

11 (2) in subparagraph (A)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘during periods’’ and in13 serting ‘‘Periods’’; and 

14 (B) by striking ‘‘not exceed 4 weeks; or’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘only continue until the earlier 

16 of—’’; and 

17 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

18 clauses: 

19 ‘‘(i) the date of the end of the term, quar20 ter, or semester during which the temporary 

21 closure occurred; and 

22 ‘‘(ii) the date that is eight weeks after the 

23 date of the temporary closure.’’; and 

24 (3) in subparagraph (B)— 

25 (A) by striking ‘‘solely’’ and inserting 

26 ‘‘Solely’’; and 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7119 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘during periods’’ and in2 serting ‘‘periods’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
Order entered December 3, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01317-CV

THE ESTATE OF MAX D. HOPPER, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-03238-1

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Jackie Galindo’s November 28, 2018 request for a 

ninety-day extension of time to file the record. We GRANT the request to the extent we 

ORDER the record be filed no later than December 31, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### Wilson *v.*Cox.

No. 6178.

August 16, 1928.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Humphries. Fulton superior court. June 25, 1927.

*8. C. Crane,*for plaintiff. *V. JE. Adams,*for defendant.

Rtjssell, C. J.

The plaintiff’s petition prayed for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from proceeding in the prosecution of a dispossessory warrant. The testimony in proof of the respective claims of the plaintiff and the defendant to possession of the premises in question is in sharp and striking conflict. The case falls within the well-settled rule of this court, that the discretion of the trial judge in granting or refusing an injunction upon conflicting evidence will not be interfered with, unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
648 A.2d 704

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 7, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR., of MARLTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, and who was thereafter suspended from the practice of law for two concurrent periods of two years effective October 21, 1992, and who remains suspended at this time, be suspended from practice for an additional period of two years, consecutive to the current two-year suspensions, for additional misconduct, including gross neglect *(RPC*1.1(a)), misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of a matter *(RPC*8.4(c)) and failure to file an affidavit in compliance with Administrative Guideline No. 23;

*50And the Disciplinary Review Board further recommending that prior to reinstatement to practice respondent demonstrate proof of fitness to practice and the successful completion of the ICLE Skills and Methods core courses and that on reinstatement respondent practice under the supervision of a proctor;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and RICHARD M. FOLEY, JR., is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years effective October 22, 1994, and until further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement respondent demonstrate his fitness to practice law and the successful completion of the ICLE Skills and Methods core courses; and it is further

ORDERED that should respondent intend to practice law as a sole practitioner after restoration to practice, that practice shall be under the supervision of a proctor approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics until further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply "with Regulation 23 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Exhibit 10.1


 


EXHIBIT
A


 


Qnexa
OB-305 TASK ORDER


 


MEDPACE
Task Order Number: 06


 


MEDPACE
Project Number: VOB305


 


[***]


 


*** Certain information on this page has been omitted
and filed separately with the Commission. 
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted
portions.
#### John George FORSTER, III, Appellant, v. Barbara Ann FORSTER, Appellee.

Nos. 5D09-2311, 5D09-3666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Jan. 28, 2011.

Steven J. Guardiano, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Lisa A. March of Law Office of Lisa A. March and Associates, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Former husband, John George Forster, III, filed two appeals challenging the trial court’s awards of permanent periodic alimony, Case No. 5D09-2311, and attorney’s fees and costs, Case No. 5D09-3666. Although we have consolidated these cases for disposition in this opinion, they remain separate and distinct cases for all other purposes.

In *Forster v. Forster,*11 So.3d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), this court reversed and remanded the trial court’s alimony award to make the findings required by section 67.08(2), Florida Statutes (2006). Still dissatisfied, former husband again challenges the trial court’s order awarding former wife, Barbara Ann Forster, $11,000 in monthly permanent, periodic alimony. We have carefully reviewed former husband’s *838arguments and cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. However, we agree with former husband that the trial court erred in finding former wife was entitled to, and subsequently awarding her, $48,150 in attorney’s fees and costs. Therefore, in Case No. 5D09-2311, we affirm the trial court’s order on alimony, but reverse its order on attorney’s fees and costs in Case No. 5D09-3666.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
#### L.A. SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC., and Aharon Emano, Appellants, v. J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2830.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 2011.

Aharon Emano, in proper person., for appellant.

Levey Filler Rodriguez Kelso & De Bianchí and John R. Kelso, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before WELLS, SALTER, and EMAS, JJ.

*ON CONFESSION OF ERROR*

WELLS, Judge.

On Appellee, J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s proper confession of error, we reverse the instant summary final judgment entered against L.A. Sports Bar & Grill and Aharon Emano, and remand for further proceedings below.

Reversed and remanded.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Phillip Merrick, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
webMethods, Inc. (the Company), has executed this certification in connection
with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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. Date: June 11, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ PHILLIP MERRICKName: Phillip Merrick
Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles H. Ketcham, Treasurer of the Village of Highland Park, v. Robert Wagner.

[See 88 Mich. 653.]

*Officers*— Municipal *corporations*— Detaching *territory.*

Under Act No. 324, Local Acts of 1891, which attached the greater portion of the territory of the village of Highland Park to the city of Detroit, and which provided for the collection of the taxes for 1891 on the detached territory the same as if the act had not passed, the treasurer of said village, who resided in the detached territory, was not expressly or impliedly retained in office, and *mandamus*will lie to compel him to deliver the books, papers, and money in his hands as such treasurer to his legally elected successor.

*Mandamus.*

Argued February 2, 1892.

Granted February 10, 1892.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel the delivery to him of the books, papers, and money in respondent’s hands as former treasurer. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in *Attorney General v. Highland Park,*88 Mich. 653.

*H. E. Spalding,*for relator.

*272
      *J. W. Robbins*and *Frank B. Leland,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The validity of the organization of the village of Highland Park, and of the election at which relator was elected, was passed upon by this Court in *Attorney General v. Village of Highland Park,*88 Mich. 653.

The respondent was not retained in office by section 8, Act No. 324, Local Acts of 1891. That section provided that the collection of taxes on lands in the territory annexed to Detroit for the year 1891 should not be affected by the act, but should be collected as if the act had not passed. The duties of treasurer, under this section, could as well be performed by the relator as by the respondent. It was not, therefore, necessary to retain respondent in office for the purpose of collecting the taxes. He was therefore neither expressly nor impliedly retained in office.

The relator is entitled to the writ as prayed for.

The respondent has, however, acted in good faith, and is entitled to retain out of the money in his hands sufficient to defray the expense incurred by him in this litigation, which is hereby fixed at the sum of $75.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00145

- CV

___________________________

Original Procee ding

415th District Court of Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV

- 18

- 1452

Before Sudderth, C.

J. ; Bassel and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### R.W. , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : May 13, 2021
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7252 

To direct the Attorney General to enter into an agreement with the National 

Academies to conduct a study to develop guidelines, best practices, and 

examples for congressional redistricting. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2018 

Mr. MCNERNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to enter into an agreement 

with the National Academies to conduct a study to develop guidelines, best practices, and examples for congressional redistricting. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair And Inclusive 

5 Redistricting Map Act’’ or the ‘‘FAIR Map Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAP STUDY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7252 IH

1 shall enter into an agreement with the National Academies 

2 under which the National Academies shall conduct a study 

3 to— 

4 (1) develop guidelines, best practices, and ex5 amples consistent with the criteria in subsection (b) 

6 to aid States in drawing congressional district maps; 

7 and 

8 (2) define metrics and limitations to such 

9 metrics for geographic contiguity, compactness, and 

10 maintaining partisan symmetry. 

11 (b) MAP CRITERIA.— 

12 (1) PRIMARY CRITERIA.—The guidelines, best 

13 practices, and examples developed under subsection 

14 (a) shall— 

15 (A) comply with the Constitution of the 

16 United States, including the requirement of 

17 equal population; 

18 (B) comply with the Voting Rights Act of 

19 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.); and 

20 (C) maintain geographic contiguity and 

21 compactness. 

22 (2) SECONDARY CRITERIA.—To the extent prac23 ticable, the guidelines, best practices, and examples 

24 developed under subsection (a) shall— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 7252 IH

1 (A) respect natural and existing political 

2 boundaries; 

3 (B) respect communities of interest; and 

4 (C) maintain partisan symmetry. 

5 (c) COMPLETION OF STUDY.—The Study required 

6 under subsection (a) shall be completed at the later of— 

7 (1) January 1, 2021; or 

8 (2) the date that is 1 year after the date of the 

9 agreement in subsection (a). 

10 (d) REPORT.—After the completion of the study, the 

11 Attorney General shall submit to Congress and make pub12 licly available the results of the study described in sub13 section (a). 

14 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

15 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

16 as may be necessary to carry out this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
##### 



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


10-K




| |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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.

|                     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Erik VonkErik VonkChief Executive Officer

|                     |  |                                                                
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Peter C. GrabowskiPeter C. GrabowskiChief Financial Officer
#### Keith J. POWELL, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-5813.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 13, 2011.

Keith J. Powell, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Smartt v. First Union Nat’l Bank,*771 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00372

- CR

Ex parte Elida Uribe §

§

§

§

§ From the 367th District Court

o f Denton County (F

- 2009

- 1488

- E )

March 9, 2017

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Bonnie Sud derth

_______________ Justice Bonnie Sudderth