alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0861

_____________________________

ALLISON E. RANIERI,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Melissa G. Olin, Judge.

June 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Margaret Woodbridge v. Hugh Robinson.

*Justices'*courts— *Warrant of attorney*— Special *appeal.-*

The fact that plaintiff’s attorney did not prove his authority is-ground for reversing a justice’s judgment for the plaintiff,, if neither party appeared and the objection was properly taken.

The objection that the attorney for plaintiff in a justice’s- court did not prove his authority is properly raised by special appeal

Error to Wayne.

Submitted Oct. 4.

Decided Oct. 11.

Trespass. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Stewcurt & Galloway*for appellant.

It is not necessary that a plaintiff’s attorney in a justice’s court should be an attorney at law: *Hughes v. Mulvey*1 Sandford 95'; failure to prove his authority to1 act cannot be taken advantage of on special appeal, but a writ of certiorari must be resorted to: *Deitz v. Groesbeck,*32 Mich. 303; *McGraw v. Sturgeon*29 Mich. 426; only jurisdictional defects are open on special appeal, and the- proof of authority of attorney is not jurisdictional; it cannot be set up as a ground *229for attacking the judgment collaterally: *Reed v. Gage 33*Mich. 179 ; *Mayhew v. Snell*33 Mich. 182.

*Hamilton Baluss*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff brought into this court by writ .of error the reversal by the circuit court for the county of Wayne óf a judgment which had been rendered by a justice in her favor. It now appeal’s that after that reversal she treated it as final and sued her claim over again and got a new judgment which is also removed by appeal now pending in the Wayne circuit court.

The judgment before us was reversed because the attorney who appeared for plaintiff in her absence did not prove his authority — the defendant as well as the plaintiff not appearing. This objection if properly taken was a good ground of reversal; and in our opinion it was. properly taken by special appeal.

The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed with ■costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### Elihu Price *v.*Wilson L. Buckler.

Account Stated — Answer—Defense.

An answer that there is a mistake in a settlement, to plaintiff’s prejudice of $150, without an allegation showing whether the mistake was by omission to include items, or in some other way, constitutes no defense.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING- CIRCUIT COURT,

March 22, 1873.

*583Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The demurrer was properly sustained to appellant’s answer. There is no allegation whatever showing the mistake was committed, whether by an omission to include items or in some other way.

The answer is that there was a mistake in the settlement to the plaintiff’s prejudice of one hundred and fifty dollars. This is no defense whatever. The facts showing the mistake must be specifically set forth. *Gains & Clark v. Parks & Erskind,*3 B. Monroe 223.

The judgment is *affirmed.*

-, *for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4179 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide a presumption of service 

connection for certain specified diseases and disabilities in the case of 

veterans who were exposed during military service to carbon tetrachloride. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2004 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide a presumption of service connection for certain specified diseases and disabilities in the case of veterans who were 

exposed during military service to carbon tetrachloride. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Carbon Tet5 rachloride Benefits Act’’. 
2 

•HR 4179 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PRESUMPTIONS OF SERVICE CONNECTION WITH 

2 RESPECT TO EXPOSURE TO CARBON TETRA3 CHLORIDE. 

4 Section 1112 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(d)(1) For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, 

8 and subject to the provisions of section 1113 of this title, 

9 in the case of a veteran who served for ninety days or 

10 more in active military, naval, or air service and who while 

11 in such service was exposed to carbon tetrachloride, any 

12 disease or disability specified in paragraph (2) becoming 

13 manifest in such veteran shall be considered to have been 

14 incurred in or aggravated by such service, notwithstanding 

15 that there is no record of evidence of such disease during 

16 the period of such service. 

17 ‘‘(2) Diseases and disabilities referred to in para18 graph (1) are the following: 

19 ‘‘(A) Depleted vision or floater cataracts. 

20 ‘‘(B) Hearing impairments such as high-pitch 

21 ringing, sensitivity to loud noises, and loss of hear22 ing. 

23 ‘‘(C) Memory losses such as lapses of recall, 

24 dates, numbers, and inverting numbers and letters. 

25 ‘‘(D) Growths. 

26 ‘‘(E) Swelling of hands or feet. 
3 

•HR 4179 IH 

1 ‘‘(F) Aching bones or joints throughout the 

2 body (not associated with arthritis). 

3 ‘‘(G) Loss of hair. 

4 ‘‘(H) Deterioration of nervous system. 

5 ‘‘(I) Pulmonary edema. 

6 ‘‘(J) Hemorrhagic congestion.’’. 

Æ
TEDCO An Introduction 

NIST and NIH Bio-Imaging 

Technologies Showcase, 10/6
Technology Transfer Mission

Build the technology-based economy in 

Maryland

Outreach

Project development

Assist companies and laboratories to 

achieve their technology transfer 

objcetives
Technology Transfer Projects

Focused collaboration 

technology development

public lab and a private company

TEDCO program initiatives defray a 

portion of the development costs

Allow company and its technology to 

mature and find continuation funding
Project

Capital

Funds

$ $

$

Basic

Research

Proof of 

Concept

Feasibility 

Testing

Product

Design

Product/

Service

Development

Project

Public 

Laboratory Company

Public

Funding

Angel Investors 

Venture Capital

SBIR

$

Funding Opportunities Outside Maryland 

TEDCO’s depiction of the Valley of Death 
Project

Capital

Funds

$

University 

Technology 

Development 

Fund

$

Maryland 

Technology Transfer 

Fund

ATTI /NTCI/FDTTI

J&J

MIPS and DBED 

Challenge 

$

$

Basic

Research

Proof of 

Concept

Feasibility 

Testing

Product

Design

Product/

Service

Development

Project

Public 

Laboratory Company

Public

Funding

WCLF

Angels

Venture Capital

DBED Enterprise

SBIR MDBio

TechStart

$

Techbridge

$

$ $

$

Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund

Rural Business Innovation Initiative (RBI2)
Project

Capital

Funds

$

$50K

$

$75K + $75K

$50K

$90K + $90K

$150K

$ $

$

Basic

Research

Proof of 

Concept

Feasibility 

Testing

Product

Design

Product/

Service

Development

Project

Public 

Laboratory Company

Public

Funding

$50K

Angels

Venture Capital

$15K

$

Techbridge

$

$

$ $10K 

At least $230 K 
Maryland Technology Transfer and 

Commercialization Fund (MTTCF)

Facilitate the transfer and commercialization 

of technology at Maryland Universities, 

Federal Laboratories and technology 

incubator companies in Maryland 

Project must involve significant collaboration

Maximum award amount is $75,000. 

Reimbursable award 

Requires a 50% company match 
MTTCF Success Criteria

Achieving technical/budget/schedule 

milestones

Finding continuation funding

132 projects completed 

(as of 7/9/09); 164 projects funded; 55% rate.

$7.9M in TEDCO support

$297.6M in continuation funding

>$37:1 leverage

Funds were raised from Angel, VC, SBIR, ATP, State, 

Debt Capital, Fed Contracts, Strategic Partners, etc.
TechStart Program 

Increase the number of technology start-up 

companies in Maryland

University and Federal Labs in the state are 

eligible 

Team- Experienced Entrepreneur, the 

inventor, and a technology transfer manager 

Maximum award amount is $15,000

IP, market, competition, business model
Rural Business Innovation 

Initiative (RBI2) 

To assist small technology oriented 

companies in obtaining critical assistance to 

move their companies to the next stage at no 

cost to the company—up to $7,500

Create economic development by 

strengthening existing and emerging 

companies in rural regions of Maryland

To build a technology entrepreneurial 

community in the rural areas
Thanks 

www.marylandtedco.org
Comments and secretariat observations Date: December 16, 2021 Document: Public comments Project: NIST

cybersecurity document:

“Baseline Criteria for

Consumer Software

Cybersecurity Labelling”

MB/NC1 Line

number

(e.g. 17)

Clause/

Subclause

(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/

Figure/

Table/

(e.g. Table 1)

Type of

comment2

Comments Proposed change Observations of

the secretariat

Deloitte &

Touche LLP

Deloitte &

Touche LLP

2.1.3

2.3.2.1

ed

ed

The document does not contain a reference to what

is clearly defined or referenced as a “critical cyber

security attribute” and allows interpretation of

severity.

The current SSDF referenced is based on selfassigned requirements to comply with the

framework. A gap may then exist when insufficient

requirements are self-assigned which may avoid

the intent of the SSDF.

Suggest creating a reference table with defined

attributes referenced in

https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/security_attribute

and

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/N

IST.SP.800-53r4.pdf to ensure continuity.

Suggest clarifying a minimum standard within either

the SSDF which includes a clarified intent or creating

an appendix which contains a minimal compliance for

each practice as it relates to this document.

Suggest creating a table or appendix with the minimal

Deloitte &

Touche LLP 2.3.3.1 ed

“Free from known vulnerabilities” does not currently

require scanning or sufficient testing which may

allow for ignorance as an excuse.

guidelines to be considered “free from known

vulnerabilities” including time and expectation such as

“conduct annual penetration testing to ensure the

Deloitte &

Touche LLP 2.3.3.1 ed

“Free from known vulnerabilities” does not require

the assessment of risks created by vulnerabilities.

It may be impractical to expect.

application is free from known vulnerabilities.”

Suggest changing from “free from known

vulnerabilities” to “free from significant risks posed by

known vulnerabilities.”

Deloitte &

Touche LLP 2.3.3.1 ge

Unknown and zero day vulnerabilities are not

mentioned.

Suggest inclusion of a requirement for timely

notification and notification method.

1 MB = Member body / NC = National Committee (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial

page 1 of 1

ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC electronic balloting commenting template/version 2012-03
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 NexGen Biofuels Ltd.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Ram
Ajjarapu, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my
knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe 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.

     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.

                                            NEXGEN BIOFUELS LTD

November 12, 2009                           By: /s/ J. Ram Ajjarapu
                                            -----------------------
                                            J RAM AJJARAPU
                                            INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
```
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, George C. Moore, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Maytag Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date and presented in this report our conclusions about effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report base on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting: and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over the financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information: and



b) any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: February 20, 2004
|                       
|/s/ George C. Moore    
|George C, Moore        
|Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Group Limited (the Company) for
the annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the Periodic Report), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/     ANDREW
SUKAWATYAndrew Sukawaty Chief Executive Officer




Date: 29 April 2008
[No. 1835.]

#### Allen Harris *v.*The State.

Theft — Possession of Property Under Claim of Eight —Fact Case. — It is a settled rule that, “ where the goods were taken under a claim of right, if the prisoner appears to have had any fair color of title, or if the title of the prosecutor be brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal, it Being improper to settle such disputes in the form of process affecting men’s lives and liberties or reputation.” See the opinion *in extenso*for evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction for cattle theft, because, if preponderating either way, it supports the defendant’s title to the alleged stolen animal.

Appeal from the District Court of Bowie. Tried below before the Hon, B. T. Estes.

The conviction in this case was for the theft of a cow, the property of E. H. Moore. The punishment assessed against the appellant was a term of two years in the penitentiary.

The testimony in the case is sufficiently summarized in' the opinion.

The transcript brings up no brief for the appellant.

*J. H.*Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. .

*178White, Presiding Judge.

There is but one witness for the State who pretended to identify the cow as the property of Eli Moore, the alleged owner, and he said he knew her by the flesh marks. On the other hand there are witnesses for defendant who are equally as positive that the cow was not Eli Moore’s but defendant’s. Eli Moore’s mark was a crop off and two splits in each ear. The cow in question had a crop off both ears, two splits in one and but one in the other ear. Defendant claimed, all the time, that he had bought the cow, and he proved a purchase and bill of sale, by one of his witnesses. When the cow was demanded of him as the property of Moore, he positively refused to give her up, claiming her as his own, and that he had bought her. So far as his claim to the cow and- his possession of her was concerned, it appears always to have been open, public, notorious, and under a claim of purchase and right. To say the most of it, the evidence of defendant’s guilt'is inconclusive and unsatisfactory, and to our minds preponderates in defendant’s favor as to the ownership of the cow.

The rule is well established that, “where the goods were taken under a claim of right, if the prisoner appears to have had any fair color of title, or if the title of the prosecutor be brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal, it being improper to settle such disputes in the form of process affecting men’s lives and liberties or reputation.” *(Evans*v. *The State,*15 Texas Ct. App., 31; *Smith*v. *The State,*42 Texas, 444.)

Because the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

[Opinion delivered November 19, 1884.]
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                         EXCLUSIVITY SERVICES AGREEMENT

            AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXCLUSIVITY SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated as of
October 27, 2005 (this "Amendment"), between FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND
MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS, an Ohio business trust (the "Company") and MICHAEL L.
ASHNER ("Ashner"), an individual.

                                    RECITALS

            WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Exclusivity Services Agreement,
dated December 31, 2003, between the Company and Ashner (the "Exclusivity
Agreement"), Ashner agreed to offer to the Company all Business Opportunities
offered to Ashner during the term of the Agreement;

            WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to make clear
that "offered to" includes "generated by";

            NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and mutual
provisions and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

            1. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall
have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Exclusivity Agreement.

            2. The Exclusivity Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section
1.1 thereof in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof:

                  Section 1.1 Business Opportunities. Ashner hereby covenants
            and agrees that any Business Opportunity offered to him or generated
            by him during the period of time that he is serving either as an
            executive officer of the Company or as a member of the Board shall
            be offered to the Company. "Business Opportunity" shall mean an
            investment in real property or assets related thereto other than a
            Permitted Investment (as defined in Section 1.2). Neither Ashner nor
            his affiliates shall be permitted to invest in a Business
            Opportunity that has been offered to the Company.

            3. Miscellaneous. (a) Except as modified hereby, the Exclusivity
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the provisions thereof are
hereby ratified and confirmed.

            (b) All references in the Exclusivity Agreement to "this Agreement",
"hereunder", "hereto" or similar references, and all references in all other
documents to the Exclusivity Agreement shall hereinafter be deemed references to
the Exclusivity Agreement as amended hereby.

<PAGE>

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
as of the date and year first above written.

                                              FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND
                                              MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS


                                              By:
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Peter Braverman
                                                  President



                                              ----------------------------------
                                                      Michael L. Ashner


                                       2
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Polypore International, Inc.****Chief Financial Officer Certification****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofPolypore, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period endedDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Lynn Amos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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. By:     /s/ Lynn Amos           Lynn Amos     Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 31, 2006