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

FOURTH DISTRICT

LARRY D. BUTLER,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-678

[February 17, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-CA-001896-

XXXX-MB.

Christopher A. Haddad of The Law Office of Christopher A. Haddad, 

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Lara J. Edelstein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Larry D. Butler, appeals the trial court’s final summary 

judgment entered in favor of appellee, Florida Peninsula Insurance 

Company (“the Insurance Company”). Appellant filed suit against the 

Insurance Company after the insured entered into a Coblentz1 settlement 

with Appellant, stipulating to a consent judgment and assigning Appellant 

the right to collect a judgment of $100,000 against the Insurance 

Company.2 In the operative complaint, Appellant alleged one count of bad 

faith against the Insurance Company for denying coverage and its failure 

1 Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 416 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1969). “A ‘Coblentz

agreement’ refers to a negotiated consent judgment ‘entered into between an 

insured and a claimant in order to resolve a lawsuit in which the insurer has 

denied coverage and declined to defend.’” Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Royal Crane, 

LLC, 169 So. 3d 174, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Bradfield v. Mid–Continent 

Cas. Co., 15 F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1257 n.6 (M.D. Fla. 2014)). 

2 The insured is not a party to this appeal or the suit below.
2

to defend the insured under the insured’s personal injury insurance policy 

in a separate suit filed by Appellant against the insured. The Insurance 

Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellant’s action 

was barred by the statute of limitations because the insured, whose claim 

Appellant had asserted, was required to file an action against the 

Insurance Company within five years of its denial of coverage and request 

to defend in the underlying suit. The trial court agreed and granted 

summary judgment in favor of the Insurance Company.

Appellant raises the same argument on appeal it raised in opposition 

to summary judgment below: The statute of limitations began to run, not 

at the time of the Insurance Company refused to cover and to defend, but 

at the time Appellant’s bad faith claim (as the assignee of the insured) 

became cognizable, which is when damages were fixed by the entry of the

agreed judgment based on the Coblentz settlement. The Insurance 

Company concedes the trial court erred as to the statute of limitations 

issue in granting summary judgment.

After reviewing the record, we agree that the trial court erred in granting 

summary judgment. We reverse the summary judgment and remand the 

case for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### James Small, etc., *v.*Samuel Drabell.

Champerty and Maintenance — Conveyance—Title.

Where W. purchased land and S. paid the purchase price and built a house thereon, and W. with the consent of S. sold and conveyed the property in payment of a firm debt of W., S'. & Co., the deed passed a good title to the purchaser as against S. and his creditors, • regardless of the state of the possession.

APPEAL FROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT.

November 10, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

If it be concluded that by the purchase of Woolridge and the payment by Spencer Small of the price of the ground on which the house in controversy was built, and the fact that said Small erected the house, at his own cost, he had such an equitable interest in the house and lot as might have been subjected to his debts, although the written evidence of title, both equitable and legal, was in Wool-ridge; still if with said Small’s sanction or concurrence Woolridge sold and conveyed the property to the appellee, ’through Gardner, in payment of the debt of the firm of Small, Woolridge & Co.,. we-are of the opinion .that the deed of Woolridge passed a good title to the appellee, as against Small and his creditors, whatever may have *182been the state of the possession, and whether it was at the time in the firm, then closing its business, or in Small or Thompson, as his tenant, for in neither of these states of the case could the validity of Woolridge’s deed have been affected by the statute against champertous conveyances. The testimony of Gardner, which is to some extent corroborated, is in effect that Small not only assented to the sale, but directed him to Woolridge to make the sale. Small himself admitted in his testimony that he at one time assented to the making of the sale, conditionally, but says, he withdrew his consent because his partners would not compensate him in notes and accounts in cqmpliance with said condition, but he does not in any distinct form attempt to prove that he notified Gardner of the withdrawal of his consent, but, as to this, he says only that he informed him that if he bought the property he would bring a lawsuit. In view of all the evidence, it seems to us that the conclusion is sustained that Gardner, acting for the appellee, made the purchase and accepted the deed of Woolridge with, and on the faith of the assent of Spencer Small, and the subsequent sale and purchase of the appellant passed to them no right or interest in the property.

*Petrie & Reeves, for appellant.*

*Bush, for appellee.*

We see no reason why Gardner was not a competent witness when he gave his deposition.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
11223.

#### Alexander *v.*The State.

Decided April 14, 1920.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Taliaferro superior court — Judge Walker. November 28, 1919.

The indictment charged that on July 15, 1918, Son Alexander *237“did knowingly permit and allow and did have and possess and locate on his premises apparatus for the distilling and manufacture of spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, and intoxicating liquors and prohibited liquors and beverages.” The sheriff testified, that on July 15, 1918, he and W. C. Chapman went to Son Alexander’s house and then went down to a.spring about 250 yards from his house and found two barrels of mash use.d in making liquor, and a lard-can still for making liquor; that this mash was about 50 feet from the spring up the branch, and the lardean still was some 30 feet from the spring down the branch. “ Son Alexander’s hog pasture ran about half way from the house to the spring, and from there on it was a swamp. I know all this was on Son Alexander’s farm and place, because I had seen him cultivating the land between the house and the spring, and had seen him working on the other side of the spring, down the branch. I don’t know just where Son Alexander’s farm lay, but I had seen him plowing on the southwest side of the branch beyond the spring.” W. 0. Chapman testified that the apparatus was found as stated by the sheriff; he did not know of his own knowledge where Son Alexander’s land or farm ran to, or whether the still apparatus was on his farm, but supposed it was. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, denied that the apparatus found by the officer was on his land, and said that his land went no further than the hog pasture, and he had no control over the land beyond that.

*236Bloodworth, J.

The motion for new trial contains no special ground; there is some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court can not interfere.

*Judgment affvimied.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*

*237
      *J. A. Beazley,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. C. Norman, solicitor-general, Alvin C. Golucke,*contra.
Reliable Environment for Secure Police

Operations and NetworkS

The Problem

Objectives Approach

Impacts

Example: “Active shooter” scenario requires

reliable, distributed, and secure communication

between police, fire & medical first responders.

Responders must be able to temporarily share information 

such as maps, photos and messages without significant 

pre-planning

Image: Hartlepool College, Creative Commons

In many first-response scenarios, it is 

common for multiple departments and 

jurisdictions to need to cooperate with 

one another, introducing complex 

communication challenges:

● Reliable: Communications must be 

robust against network fragmentation 

and disruption

● Distributed: The decentralized nature 

of operations requires devices to 

directly communicate with one another 

in the temporary absence of a central 

controller

● Secure: Communications must be 

protected from eavesdropping and 

active interference

We plan to use existing commodity software where 

possible, and leverage technology that already tackles 

similar reliability and decentralized challenges in a 

different context.

We propose to use technology widely 

deployed in modern datacenters, and 

apply them to disconnected mobile 

communication.

We plan to use opportunistic encryption 

between devices to protect against 

passive eavesdroppers, and an optional 

certificate authority.

Technologies such as etcd offer 

distributed consensus, while remaining 

robust in the face of intermittent 

disconnection

We will use standard network tools 

like multipath TCP for robust 

communication over multiple links.

Proven machine learning 

techniques for network occupancy

will infer LTE, WiFi performance, 

allowing informed selection of 

multiple wireless links

Milestones

The goals of Respons are to build a robust and 

reliable software framework that simplifies the 

construction of advanced public safety 

applications in disconnected or intermittently 

connected environments.

Our approach builds on emerging Information 

Centric Network and Fog Computing concepts 

while using proven technologies adopted in data 

center applications to minimize risk.

The Respons software environment should 

simplify agency-specific software development 

for information gathering & dissemination in field 

operations.

Dirk.Grunwald@Colorado.edu †♢

Sangtae.Ha@Colorado.edu †◆

Eric.Wustrow@Colorado.edu ♢

† Dept. of Computer Science

♢ Electrical, Computer & Energy Eng.

◆ Interdisciplinary Telecom Program
**Exhibit 32**

 

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

 

I, the Corporate Trustee of Mesabi Trust,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, theAnnual Report of Mesabi Trust on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information containedin such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Mesabi Trust.

 
| /s/ Rodney Gaughan                       | April 11,  2008 |
|------------------------------------------|----------------------|
| Rodney Gaughan*                          |                 |
| Vice President                           |                 |
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company     |                 |
| For Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas |                 |

----

* There are no principal executive officersor principal financial officers of the registrant.

 

*Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Mesabi Trust and will be retained by Mesabi Trust and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

----
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28393]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be open to the public and will convene by 
teleconference. The conference call-in number is 866-479-8610 and the 
access code is 121595. If any special assistance is needed please 
notify the contact person listed below.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Concept Review: Ghrelin Vaccine for 
Alcohol Use Disorders.
    Date: December 15, 2014.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To provide concept review.
    Place: NIAAA, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project 
Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
NIH, 5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 451-
2067, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b68697275726d7a695b767a727735757273357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afdcddc6c1c6d9ceddefc2cec6c381c1c6c781c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the concept review 
cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 92.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Supports Awards, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 26, 2014.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28393 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 03-15-00539-CR 

MATTHEW DIAZ, } 

Appellant } 

 } IN THE COURT 

 } OF APPEALS 

 } OF THE THIRD 

v. } SUPREME JUDICIAL 

 } DISTRICT 

THE STATE OF TEXAS } 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

 Comes now John Kuchera, undersigned counsel for Appellant, pursuant to 

Rule 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this motion for an 

extension of thirty (30) days in which to the file Appellant’s brief in the aboveentitled and numbered cause. In support of this motion, undersigned counsel would 

show the Court the following. 

 Counsel was notified by this Court on October 28, 2015 that Appellant’s brief 

was overdue. Counsel has simply been negligent and did not calendar the due date 

for the brief when the Clerk’s Record was filed September 9, 2015. Counsel is 

presently working on an appellate brief in U.S.A. v. Pina, Appeal No. 15-50792 in 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which is due November 1, 2015. Counsel will 

begin Appellant’s brief immediately thereafter. 

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, undersigned counsel requests 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00539-CR

7598081

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

10/29/2015 12:40:56 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/29/2015 12:40:56 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
that this Court grant an extension through November 9, 2015, for the filing of 

Appellant's brief herein. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ John A. Kuchera 

 John A. Kuchera 

 210 N. 6th St. 

 Waco, Texas 76701 

 (254) 754-3075 

 (254) 756-2193 (facsimile) 

 SBN 00792137 

 johnkuchera@210law.com 

 Attorney for Appellant 

Certificate of Service 

I certify that on the 29th day of October, 2015, I mailed the foregoing to: 

Mr. Bob D. Odom 

Assistant District Attorney 

P.O. Box 540 

Belton, TX 76513 

 /s/ John A. Kuchera 

 John A. Kuchera
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4763 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4763

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for 
 pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
   Affairs to veterans who served during certain periods of time in 
                          specified locations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 6, 2004

  Mr. Rahall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for 
 pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
   Affairs to veterans who served during certain periods of time in 
                          specified locations.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              PENSION BENEFITS.

     Section 1501(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term includes--
            ``(1) the period beginning on February 1, 1955, and ending 
        on August 4, 1964, in the case of active military, naval, or 
        air service performed in the Republic of Korea;
            ``(2) the period beginning on May 8, 1975, and ending on 
        August 1, 1990, in the case of active military, naval, or air 
        service performed in the Republic of Korea;
            ``(3) the period beginning on August 24, 1982, and ending 
        on July 31, 1984, in the case of active military, naval, or air 
        service performed in Lebanon or Granada; and
            ``(4) the period beginning on December 20, 1989, and ending 
        on January 31, 1990, in the case of active military, naval, or 
        air service performed in Panama.''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00204-CV

IN RE Abel Alvarado CASILLAS and Premier Eagle Ford Services, Inc.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 26, 2017

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 5, 2017, Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay. The 

court has considered the petition and is of the opinion Relators are not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay are denied. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CVT-000742-D2, styled Ruben Gonzalez v. Abel Casillas & Premier 

Eagle Ford Services, Inc., pending in the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Monica 

Z. Notzon presiding.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ERIC KARL McCOY, DOC #051791, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1906 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 22, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge. Eric Karl McCoy, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS 

### GREGORY WAYNE COTTON NO. 

### 2022 KW 0169 MAY 9, 2022 In Re: 

## Gregory Wayne Cotton, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington, No. 86 -CRC -40823. BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. 

### The trial court is instructed, 

### if it has not already done so, to proceed toward 

### disposition of relator' s Motion to proceed under 

### 1st Amend of the U.S. Constitution and U. S. 

### Supreme Court 

### controlling Jurisprudence to 

### have 

### my case/ claims 

### heard," filed on December 

### 20, 2021, on or 

### before June 6, 2022. JMG GH WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 41126 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE FRANCISCO LUNA

- PEREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 911

- 1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Francisco Luna

- Perez 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). Luna

- Perez h a s 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

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-41126 Document: 00512751237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014No. 13

- 41126
nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-41126 Document: 00512751237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: J ustin Wayne Parris v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 0050 2

- CR

Trial court case number: 13 52699

Trial court: 338 th Judicial District Court of H a rri s County

On May 28, 2015, this case ’s abate ment was continue d and remanded to the trial

court to appoint new appellate counsel and to have the trial clerk file a supplemental
clerk’s record with the appointment order

. On September 29 , 2015, a compliant
supplemental clerk’s record with the trial court’s order appointing Celeste Blackburn as
appellant’s new appellate counsel, s igned on May 29 , 2015, was filed in this Court.

A cc ordingly, w e REINSTATE this case on this Court’s active docket. The Clerk of this
Court is directed to remove Jerome Godinich Jr. as appellant’s counsel, and to designate
Celeste Blackburn as appellant’s lead appointed counsel.

Furthermore, a ppellant’s br ief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days

from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 38.6(a) , (d)

. T he State’s appellee’s

brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days f rom the filing of appellant’s

brief. See id. 38.6(b )

.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley



Date: October 6, 2015