alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 12 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 01217 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF D .C., ET AL., CHILDRE N On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Co urt

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 12 - 06457



### O RDER Before the Court is the Department of Family and Protective Services’ December 10, 2019 first motion for extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief due on or before December 31, 2019. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### TURNER *v.*SHUPIN *et al.*

1. Where in a- decree on exceptions to an auditor’s report the court taxed auditor’s and receiver’s fees and costs, half to be paid by plaintiff and half by defendants, and plaintiff excepted to so much of the decree as taxed him with any part of such fees and costs, the writ of error is not subject to dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff failed to assign error generally on the decree or on any definite part of it.

2 No abuse of discretion appears in the award of fees and costs.

No. 6662.

August 20, 1928.

. Equitable petition. Before Judge Humphries. Fulton superior court. June 6, 1928.

*E. E. Turner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Augustine Bams, Roy 8. Brennan,*and *E. A. Etheridge,*contra.

Gilbert, J.

The judgment of the trial court recites that conflicting demands arose to the same fund; that Turner sued Thompson, who is a defendant in error, on two certain promissory notes, and that it was shown that Thompson was indebted to Shupin; that the litigation was referred to an auditor, who found that the claim of Turner on one of his notes was a first lien on the property the sale of which later made the fund, that the debt by Thompson to Shupin was a second lien, and that the other note held by Turner was a third lien. The court upheld these findings of the auditor, and adjudged that a fee of $100 be allowed the auditor, half to be paid by Turner and half each by Thompson and Shupin; that $200 be allowed a receiver in the case, and $100 to an attorney for the receiver, to be similarly paid; and that the costs be taxed half against Turner and the other half equally against Thompson and Shupin. Turner excepted to so much of said judgment as taxed portions of said fees and costs against him. The defendants in error move to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that such exception “fails completely to assign error generally to the final decree, . . or to assign error to any definite portion thereof.”

1. The motion to dismiss is denied. The plaintiff in error can not be required to except to the entire decree, but only to such portions thereof as are adverse to him. ■

*807
      *2.*
      **In the award of fees to the auditor, the receiver, and his attorney, and in the assessment of costs, it has not been made to appear that the discretion of the court was abused. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5488, 5489. Compare *Hall*v. *Stulb,*126. *Ga.*521 (55 S. E. 172); *Keating v. Fuller,*151 *Ga.*66 (105 S. E. 844).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 87-6510.

#### Nigro *v.*Beyer, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### BARCLAY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Florida limited liability partnership, Appellant, v. PLANTFIND.COM, a Florida corporation, and Frank Ferraro, individually and Mike Ferraro, individually, Appellees.

No. 4D10-991.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, 2011.

Bambi G. Blum and Edward Philip Green of Bambi G. Blum, P.A., Miami, and Lance W. Shinder of Lance W. Shinder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Richard S. Tolbert, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The parties entered into a lease agreement, whereby appellee Plantfind would take possession of the premises on August 1, 2004, after appellant Barclay made certain improvements. On October 21, 2004, Plantfind terminated the lease due to Barclay’s failure to deliver the premises. Barclay filed a complaint, alleging that the parties orally agreed to modify the lease and extend the August 1 deadline. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Plantfind, finding that the statute of frauds barred oral modification of the lease. Subsequent to the trial court’s decision, this court decided *DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC,*31 So.3d 313, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA), *review granted,*47 So.3d 1288 (Fla.2010), which held that a party is prevented “from ignoring oral modifications to conditions of performance, where to do so, in light of one party’s reliance on the modifications, creates an injustice.” Because the trial court did not have the benefit of *DK Arena,*and because the parties agreed at oral argument that *DK Arena*is dispositive, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider its decision in light of that case. We affirm without comment the trial court permitting Plantfind to amend its pleadings to assert a claim for attorney’s fees.

*Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.*

*1292CIKLIN, LEVINE, JJ., and THORNTON, JOHN W., JR., Associate Judge, concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Emmitt HILLS.

No. 2011-KP-0777.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Hills, Emmitt; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 89584, 89585.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1255

WARREN KIRKLAND, Warren: Kirkland for Warren Kirkland Estate Trust,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FAIRFIELD WESTON CIRCLE LLC, d/b/a Weston Circle Apartments, by FRH GP 

LLC; CLARISSA SCOTT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00090-DJN)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Kirkland, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1255 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren Kirkland appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for, 

among other things, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Kirkland v. 

Fairfield Weston Circle LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00090-DJN (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2023). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1255 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Douglas STALLEY, Appellant, v. Harrison WILLIFORD, as Representative of the Estate of Pamela Lynn Williford, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 2D09-4635.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 8, 2010.

*681Laura Whitmore of Gunn Law Group, Tampa, and Tracy Raffles Gunn of Gunn Appellate Practice, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Brian E. Johnson of Brian E. Johnson, P.A., Seminole, for Appellee.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Pamela Lynn Williford died in 2008, leaving two minor children as the sole heirs of her intestate estate. Douglas Stalley was tendered by the children as a suitable personal representative, but the circuit court appointed Williford’s father, Harrison Williford, instead. This appointment was contrary to the statute prescribing the order of preference for appointment of a personal representative in this case. Accordingly, we reverse.

The statute, section 733.301, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following order of preference in appointment of a personal representative of an intestate estate:

> 1. The surviving spouse.

> 2. The person selected by a majority in interest of the heirs.

> 3.The heir nearest in degree.

§ 733.301(l)(b).

There was no surviving spouse in this case. Douglas Stalley was the person selected by both heirs, acting through the guardians of their property as authorized under section 733.301(2). Thus, Stalléy should have been appointed unless otherwise disqualified. *Cf.*§§ 733.302, 303 (providing qualifications for personal representative); *In re Estate of Snyder,*333 So.2d 519, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding, under earlier version of statute, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint person with statutory preference where he lacked “the qualities and characteristics necessary to properly perform the duties”).

There was a complete absence of evidence to suggest that Stalley was unfit to serve. Thus, the court abused its discretion by appointing the decedent’s father rather than the representative chosen by-the heirs.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ„ Concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, in connection with Rule , that based on 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKYWilliam P. HankowskyChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 8, 2004
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ qcourt of §ppeaI~

for tbe jfeberal qcircuit

AMERICAN PATENT DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MOVIELINK, LLC AND BLOCKBUSTER, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

2010-1554

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware in case no. 07-CV-0605, Judge Leonard P. Stark.

ORDER

The court notes that the appellees have not filed a

status report within the time set by the court's October 29,

2010 order.

Upon consideration thereof

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Movielink, LLC and Blockbuster, Inc. are directed to

file a status report within 30 days of the date of this order

and every 90 days thereafter concerning the status of the

bankruptcy proceedings and whether the automatic stay
AMERICAN PATENT v. MOVIELINK 2

is lifted. Any other party may fue a status report or

respond to a status report.

FOR THE COURT

DEC 19 2012

Date

cc: Theodore M. Sabety, Esq.

Scott W. Breedlove, Esq.

s21

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

FILED

U.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDEf!!'J. r.!RCUIT

DEC "/ 9 lOll

JAN HORBALY

CLERK
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 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:



|(i) | the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 16, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ THOMAS J. MAY                              
|                         |  |  |  | Thomas J. May                                  
|                         |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-3370

LT Case No. 2017-CA-000321

____________________________

EGM MARKETING, INC., d/b/a 

Anchor’s Away Cruises and 

Tours,

Appellant,

v.

MANIPHONE PHOUANGEKO 

ALBRECHT,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County.

Jason J. Nimeth, Judge.

Elliott Goldberg, of DiGiacomo & Goldberg, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellant. 

Joseph C. Shoemaker, of Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A., 

Leesburg, for Appellee.

July 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and LAMBERT and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Order entered August 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00958-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.L.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-7655

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 19, 2013 response to this Court’s order dated 

August 5, 2013. We treat appellant’s response as a motion for an extension of time to file his 

notice of appeal. We GRANT appellant’s motion. Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on July 15, 

2013 is deemed timely for jurisdictional purposes. Appellant’s brief is due October 4, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
#### Gerardo BONET, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2654.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 2011.

Gerardo Bonet, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Gabriel v. State,*962 So.2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Gevity HR, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Erik Vonk, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, Peter C. Grabowski, 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 (the Act), 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:  March 10, 2004 |  | /s/ ERIK VONK                                                                                   
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Erik Vonk
                                                     Chief Executive Officer          
|                       |  |                                                                                                 
|Dated:  March 10, 2004 |  | /s/ PETER C. GRABOWSKI                                                                          
|                       |  | Peter C. Grabowski
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
News United States Air Force
 98 enlisted Airmen on October supplemental promotion listPublished Oct. 14, 2014
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force has selected 98 enlisted Airmen for promotion via the supplemental promotion process, Air Force Personnel Center officials announced.To see the list, go to the Air Force Portal and select the promotion news link, or go to myPers, enter "Active Duty: Enlisted Promotions Home Page" in the search window, select the page and scroll down to the supplemental promotion section.Airmen on the supplemental list tested outside of their required cycle because of an extended temporary duty assignment or deployment in support of a contingency, promotion and testing representatives said.Selection is based on overall promotion scores derived from Weighted Airman Promotion System factors, including time-in-grade, time-in-service, enlisted performance reports, decorations, promotion fitness examination score and specialty knowledge test score. For promotion to senior or chief master sergeant, it also includes board scores.Promotion selections are tentative until the data verification process is complete; generally 10 days after the promotion release date.For more information about promotions and other personnel issues, go to myPers.*(Information courtesy of the Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs)*promotion 



personnel 



Supplemental promotion
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7215 

To require a report on expenditures for contracts for advertising services, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2018 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To require a report on expenditures for contracts for 

advertising services, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Government 

5 Advertising Equity Accountability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON EXPENDITURES FOR CONTRACTS FOR 

7 ADVERTISING SERVICES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(a) of title 31, 

9 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new paragraph: 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7215 IH

1 ‘‘(40) The following information with respect to 

2 each executive agency: 

3 ‘‘(A) Expenditures of the executive agency 

4 for the prior fiscal year and the current fiscal 

5 year, respectively, for— 

6 ‘‘(i) all contracts for advertising serv7 ices; and 

8 ‘‘(ii) contracts for the advertising 

9 services of— 

10 ‘‘(I) socially and economically 

11 disadvantaged small business concerns 

12 (as defined in section 8(a)(4) of the 

13 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

14 637(a)(4)); and 

15 ‘‘(II) women- and minority-owned 

16 businesses. 

17 ‘‘(B) Estimated expenditures of the execu18 tive agency for the fiscal year for which the 

19 budget is submitted for— 

20 ‘‘(i) all contracts for advertising serv21 ices; and 

22 ‘‘(ii) contracts for the advertising 

23 services of— 

24 ‘‘(I) socially and economically 

25 disadvantaged small business concerns 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7215 IH

1 (as defined in section 8(a)(4) of the 

2 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

3 637(a)(4)); and 

4 ‘‘(II) women- and minority-owned 

5 businesses.’’. 

6 (b) APPLICATION DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this Act shall apply to the report submitted under section 

8 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 

9 2020, and each fiscal year thereafter. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3621

___________________________

Thomas J. Ingrassia

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Keith Schafer, Director, Missouri Department of Mental Health, In His Official

Capacity; Felix Vincenz, Chief Operating Officer, Division of Comprehensive

Psychiatric Services, Missouri Department of Mental Health, In His Official

Capacity; Julie Inman, Regional Executive Officer, Missouri Department of Mental

Health, In Her Official Capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

Carol Dicknette, Office of Consumer Safety, Missouri Department of Mental Health

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

Leigh Gibson, Office of Consumer Safety, Missouri Department of Mental Health

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Alan Blake, Chief Operating Officer, SORTS, In His Official and Individual

Capacity; Jay Englehart, Psychiatrist/Physician, Medical Director, SORTS, In His

Official and Individual Capacity; Beth Weinkein, Dietician II, SORTS, In Her

Official and Individual Capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
Brenda Swift, Facility Grievance Coordinator, SORTS, In Her Official and

Individual Capacity; Bob Wills, Chief Nursing Executive, SORTS; Joe Easter, RN

5, SORTS

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

Marybeth Rowe, RN 5, SORTS

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

Kevin Fletcher, Risk Management Committee; Kristina Bender, Unit Program

Supervisor, SORTS; John Does, Members of Risk Manaagement Committee,

Executive Committee, Resident's Rights Review Committee, SORTS

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: August 15, 2014

Filed: August 20, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. Ingrassia sued Keith Schafer and other defendants under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional right to adequate nutrition while

incarcerated. The district court denied defendants qualified immunity. They appeal. 

See Robbins v. Becker, 715 F.3d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[This court has]

-2-
jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of qualified

immunity under the collateral order doctrine.”).

This court remands the case so that the district court can make findings of fact

and conclusions of law sufficient to permit appellate review of defendants’ qualified

immunity defense. See Wright v. United States, 545 Fed. Appx. 588, 589-90 (8th Cir.

2013) (district court must determine which facts are genuinely disputed and view

those facts favorable to the nonmovant); Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1160 (8th

Cir. 2012) (remanding to the district court “for a more complete articulation of its

analysis of [defendant’s] motion for summary judgment based on qualified

immunity”).

* * * * * * *

The district court’s order is vacated, and the case remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

-3-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**W. DAWN BUSBY**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 206 DB 2015 (No. 13 RST 2016)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 51672** 

**(Out of State)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17 th**  **day of February, 2016, the Report and Recommendatio n of**  **Disciplinary Board Member dated February 5, 2016, is a pproved and it is ORDERED**  **that W. Dawn Busby, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or**  **disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and**  **learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,**  **hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Ba r of this Commonwealth. The**  **expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall**  **be paid by the Petitioner.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideratio n or decision of this** 

**matter.**