alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### N.C., the Father, and P.C., the Mother, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Nos. 4D10-699, 4D10-996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 3, 2010.

Kevin G. Thomas, Sunny Isles Beach, for appellant, N.C., the Father.

Jeffrey B. Levy of the Law Offices of Jeffrey B. Levy, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant, P.C., the Mother.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas B. Arden, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Hillary Kambour, Tavares, for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these two appeals and affirm. *See N.S. and D.R. v. DCF,*36 So.3d 776 (2010).

TAYLOR, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
#### Womack, Appellant, *v.*Eversman et al., Appellees.

(Decided March 17, 1941.)

*Mr. A. I. Murdock,*for appellant.

*Mr. J. Sagmeister,*for appellees.

By the Court.

The Common Pleas Court sustained a general demurrer to the third amended petition,' and the plaintiff not desiring to plead further, judgment was rendered against her. It is from that judgment that this appeal was taken.

The third amended petition is styled “creditor’s hill,” which, of course, is an erroneous description, as *288under the Ohio Code of Civil Procedure, an action is begun by the filing of a petition. However, no objection is made to this pleading on that ground.

The only question is whether, when construed most favorably to the pleader, this pleading states a cause of action. "We examine it to determine that.

It is alleged that the plaintiff has a judgment against one of the defendants, and that that defendant has no personal or real property subject to execution. It is then alleged that this defendant under an agreement with the other defendant erected certain houses on lots to which the latter defendant has the legal title, and that the agreement provided that the legal owner should have pay for its services and property and the judgment debtor the balance. It is expressly alleged that the judgment debtor has a contingent equitable interest in the real estate described by reference to subdivision lot numbers. The prayer is that this equitable interest be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.

"We are of the opinion that this pleading states all the essential elements of a cause of action to subject equitable assets, not subject to execution, to the payment of this judgment, and that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

For this reason, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

*Judgment reversed mid cause remanded.*

Matthews, P. J., Ross and Hamilton, JJ,, concur.
#### Mark David KANAREK, M.D., et al., Petitioners, v. Joseph SULLIVAN, etc., Respondent.

No. SC10-1196.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 2, 2011.

Dinah Stein of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld, and Stein, P.A., Miami, FL, and Ronald Howell Josepher and Edwin Paul Gale of Josepher and Batteese, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Petitioners.

George A. Vaka of Vaka Law Group, P.L., Tampa, FL, and Charles Steven Yer-rid and Tammy J. Judge, of the Yerrid Law Firm, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review *Sullivan v. Kanarek,*34 So.3d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), in *1228which the Second District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in *City of Tampa v. Companioni,*26 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), *quashed,*51 So.3d 452 (Fla.2010). At the time the Second District issued its decision in *Kanarek, Compa-nioni*was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. *See*art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; *Jollie v. State,*405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of *Companioni v. City of Tampa,*51 So.3d 452 (Fla.2010) (quashing the Second District’s *Compa-nioni*decision). We then issued an order directing respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the Second District’s *Kanarek*decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in *Com-panioni.*Upon consideration of respondent’s response, and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.

We accordingly accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Second District for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in *Compa-nioni*

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.3 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Mary Dridi, Executive Vice President 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, 2005
(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 13, 2005 /s/ MARY DRIDI
Name: Mary Dridi
Title: Executive Vice President
#### James Malcolm BEARDEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18036.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 22, 1960.

James M. Roberts, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Charles D. Read, Jr., U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., John W. Stokes, Jr., J. Robert Sparks, Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction under a one count indictment charging the defendant with wilfully failing and refusing to render a correct return of the disposition of 183 100-pound bags of sugar in violation of Sections 5213 and 5609, Title 26, U.S.Code.* The main contention is that the defendant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. We think that there was adequate evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We find no reversible error in the Court’s charge. The judgment is

Affirmed.

*

 Now 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1954) §§ 5291, 5605.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PROFESSIONAL
TRANSPORTATION GROUP LTD., INC. AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       (227,920)
<SECURITIES>                                 1,650,652
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,957,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (267,578)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,071,034
<PP&E>                                       5,823,515
<DEPRECIATION>                               (838,528)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,449,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,119,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,035,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,449,807
<SALES>                                     43,064,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,064,743
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,587,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (340,285)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               242,829
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             341,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,524,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   246,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,770,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,770,300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5                 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         341,022
<SECURITIES>                                   264,095
<RECEIVABLES>                                  252,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,769
<INVENTORY>                                    102,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,074,674
<PP&E>                                         140,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,725
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,306,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          251,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,054,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,306,512
<SALES>                                        305,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               305,114
<CGS>                                          109,810
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               118,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,964)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,525
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SPECTRUMEDIX
CORPORTION AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,183,458                  20,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,137                  55,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    617,191                 527,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,996,428                 608,198
<PP&E>                                         766,108                 658,432
<DEPRECIATION>                               (290,253)               (194,896)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,992,189               1,545,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,995,289               2,580,835
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          2                       0
<COMMON>                                         4,877                   4,059
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,910             (1,142,795)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,992,189               1,545,372
<SALES>                                        320,390                 317,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,193,405                 317,672
<CGS>                                          644,384                 831,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  644,384                 831,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,632,748               2,431,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,075                  13,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (928,340)             (2,942,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (928,340)             (2,942,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (928,340)             (2,942,532)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)                  (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)                  (0.84)


</TABLE>
|                           | South Jersey Gas      Company |                                                     |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |                          |                                                     |   |
| Date:       March 4, 2009 | By:                           | /s/ David      A. Kindlick                          |   |
|                           |                          | David      A. Kindlick                                   |   |
|                           |                          | Senior      Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                           |                          |                                                     |   |

----
649 A.2d 1281

#### FIRST JERSEY NATIONAL BANK, v. BRIEHLER PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

September 13, 1994.

ORDER

The Court having determined that the matter does not present a substantial constitutional question -within the meaning of *Rule*2:2-l(a)(l) or applicable caselaw, the within appeal is dismissed.
#### PHILLIPS *v.*BLACKWELL.

It not sufficiently appearing that the writ of error was sued out for delay only, the motion (upon non-appearance for the plaintiff in error) to open the record and award damages for delay is denied.

No. 6622.

August 16, 1928.

Writ of error; from Fulton.

*J. K. Jordan,*for defendant in error.

Hines, J.

On the call of this case the plaintiff in error was unrepresented; and counsel for the defendant in error moved the court to open the record, and insisted on an affirmance of the judgment and an award of ten per cent, damages for delay.

The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed (Civil Code, § 6249, rule 30); but the motion of counsel of the defendant in error for this court to open the record and award ten per cent, damages against the plaintiff in error for delay is denied, it not sufficiently appearing that the writ of error was sued out for delay only. This case differs from *Holland*v. *Brooks,*40 *Ga.*94 (2); *Howser*v. *Evans,*40 *Ga.*157; *Porter*v. *Kolb,*46 *Ga.*266; *Eagle Mfg. Co.*v. *Wise,*48 *Ga.*630; *Brown*v. *Brown,*51 *Ga.*554; *Collins*v. *Mobile Fruit &c. Co.,*108 *Ga.*752 (32 S. E. 667); *Osborn &c.*
      *738
      *Co.*v. *Blanton,*109 *Ga.*196 (3) (34 S. E. 306); *Southern Ry. Co.*v. *Hooper,*110 *Ga.*779 (3) (36 S. E. 232); *Wright*v. *Hartsfield,*111 *Ga.*819 (35 S. E. 640); *Brooks*v. *Proctor,*111 *Ga.*835 (2) (36 S. E. 99); in which cases writs of error were sued out to review judgments overruling motions for new trial, based upon the grounds that the verdicts were without evidence to support them, or where no briefs of evidence had been prepared and approved and brought to this court. In the case at bar, the motion for new trial was filed in time, and an order taken giving the movant until the hearing to amend his motion for new trial, and to perfect the samé; and at the hearing movant offered to perfect his motion for new trial by filing and having approved a brief of the evidence. The court held that under this order movant was not relieved from filing a brief of the evidence within the time required by law; and for this reason dismissed the motion for new trial. Movant sued out the present writ of error to review that judgment. Under the circumstances it does not sufficiently appear that the writ of error was sued out for delay only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7139 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7139

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an alien 
  may only apply for asylum at a designated port of arrival, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2018

 Mr. Gohmert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an alien 
  may only apply for asylum at a designated port of arrival, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Asylum at Designated Arrival Ports 
and Terminals Act 2018'' or the ``ADAPT Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 208(a) (8 U.S.C. 1158(a))--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)--
                            (i) by striking ``is physically present in 
                        the United States or who arrives in the United 
                        States (whether or not at a designated port of 
                        arrival and including an alien who is brought 
                        to the United States after having been 
                        interdicted in international or United States 
                        waters), irrespective of such alien's status,'' 
                        and inserting ``who arrives in the United 
                        States at a designated port of arrival''; and
                            (ii) by inserting before the period at the 
                        end the following: ``only if the alien applies 
                        for asylum at a designated port of arrival''; 
                        and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``within 1 
                year after the date of'' and inserting ``immediately 
                upon''; and
            (2) in section 235(b)(1)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)), by 
        striking ``or is described in clause (iii)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Romeo WARD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D10-2546.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 27, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 2010.

Romeo Ward, Lowell, pro se.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We elect to treat the petition for certio-rari as an appeal and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
|   | 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 Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Terry L. Stevens                                                               |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |   |
| July 29, 2011                                                                  |   |

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30382

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILL LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-9-1-A

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Will Lewis appeals from his sentence for conspiring to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possessing

with intent to distribute cocaine base. Lewis contends that the

district court erred by attributing 345.1 grams of cocaine base

to him.

The district court’s attribution of 345.1 grams of cocaine

base to Lewis was not clearly erroneous. United States v.

Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Lewis’s

sentence is affirmed.
No. 98-30382

-2-

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50081

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVE MAURICE TYLER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-128-5

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Steve Maurice Tyler has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Tyler has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50081 Document: 00514280273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-50081

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50081 Document: 00514280273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017