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

FOURTH DISTRICT

LISA CONSALVO,

Appellant,

v.

PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3926

[November 15, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 15-

016571(12).

Glen B. Levine of the Law Offices of Anidjar & Levine, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Edward G. Guedes and Richard Rosengarten of Weiss Serota Helfman 

Cole & Bierman, P.L., Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MOHAN KRISHNAN AND

VASANTHALLAZMI KRISHNAN,

Petitioners

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY AS TRUSTEE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 35 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140252 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140252 

 COA: 292447 

Wayne CC: 05-007334 

ANTHONY LYNN RANDALL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES TROUTMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 316 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fell,
Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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: November 15, 2010                 /s/ John Fell
                                        -------------
                                        John Fell
                                        Treasurer-Controller
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4642

To provide for the extension of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 

into the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2004

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

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To provide for the extension of the New Jersey Coastal 

Heritage Trail into the Township of Woodbridge, New 

Jersey.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERIT4 AGE TRAIL. 

5 The second sentence of section 2 of Public Law 100–

6 515 (102 Stat. 2563; 16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended 

7 by inserting ‘‘including sites in the Township of 

8 Woodbridge, New Jersey,’’ after the words ‘‘cultural 

9 sites’’.

Æ
**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**

**BioLok      International Inc.**

| a)     | The Report fully                    complies with the                    requirements of Section  13(a)                     or                    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and                                                                                                                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| b)     | The information contained                    in the                    Report fairly presents, in all  material                    respects, the financial condition and results of  operations                    of the Registrant as of the dates and the periods  expressed                    in the Report. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |

**Bio-Lok      International Inc.**

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
     SPARTA FOODS, INC.'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND
     IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     30,567  
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             899,877
<ALLOWANCES>                               50,000
<INVENTORY>                               980,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,071,720
<PP&E>                                  6,080,455
<DEPRECIATION>                          2,456,966    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          7,758,492
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   2,428,370
<BONDS>                                 1,729,097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      66,850
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,534,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            7,758,492
<SALES>                                10,114,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                   7,028,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,241,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        240,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           604,628
<INCOME-TAX>                               16,087
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       588,541
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0  
<NET-INCOME>                              588,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 .07
        


</TABLE>
11028.

#### Webster *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1920.

Indictment for larceny of automobile; from Crisp superior court' ■—Judge Gower. September *26,*1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*James H. Dodgen, Jere M. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, Jesse Grantham,*contra.

Luke, J.

This case is controlled by the decision this day rendered in its companion case, *Danzley*v. *State,*ante, 170 (102 *S. E.*915).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133918 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133918 

 COA: 272814 

Oakland CC: 1991-108672-FC 

FELIPE PLANES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LOREN K. BRAZELL, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

DEBRA BRAZELL, 

Respondent. 

No. 67932 

FILED 

JAN 15 2016 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERK gc SUPREME COURT 

EV?"-- EPUTY CLERK 2jear

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court post-divorce decree 

order awarding attorney fees. Second Judicial District Court, Family 

Court Division, Washoe County; Frances Doherty, Judge. 

On appeal, appellant challenges the award of $10,215.01 in 

attorney fees to respondent. In granting respondent's request for attorney 

fees, the district court reasoned that appellant had submitted multiple 

motions seeking the same relief that had been denied on past occasions. 

The court noted that it had previously cautioned the parties that "it may 

award fees in the future if needless litigation is necessitated by either 

party." Although appellant argues that he was not aware of that 

admonishment until shortly after he filed his motion, the district court 

recognized that appellant could have withdrawn his motion or chosen not 

to file multiple supplemental motions thereafter. 

Additionally, respondent submitted an affidavit in support of 

the requested fees under Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 

345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). The district court stated that it 

carefully reviewed respondent's affidavit and the attached billing 

statements along with appellant's reply in opposition. The district court 

(0) 1347A 
J. 

Hardesty 

Saitta Pickering 

noted counsel's efforts in representing respondent throughout many 

portions of the litigation process, made findings as to the Brunzell factors, 

and determined that $10,215.01 was an appropriate award of fees. Id. at 

349, 455 P.2d at 33. We have considered appellant's arguments and 

reviewed the record on appeal, and we conclude that appellant has not 

demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the 

attorney fees. See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 P.3d 727, 729 

(2005) (stating that an award of attorney fees in a divorce proceeding is 

within the district court's sound discretion). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1 

cc: Hon. Frances Doherty, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Loren K. Brazell 

Debra Brazell 

Kelli Anne Viloria 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'On December 4, 2015, respondent filed a notice of substitution of 

counsel requesting that respondent, in pro se, be substituted in place of 

her attorney Kelli Anne Viloria, Esq. We construe the notice as a motion 

to withdraw, and we grant the motion. See NRAP 46(e)(3). The clerk of 

this court shall remove Kelli Ann Viloria, Esq., and the Law Offices of 

Kelli Anne Viloria as counsel of record for respondent. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ..)e
#### Thos. W. Paschal *v.*W. S. Sheppard.

Costs — Liability for Board During Imprisonment.

A person in prison under Civ. Process was .liable under the statute, of 1865, for bis board during bis confinement in ¡the jail, at the rate of 75 cents per day, to be taxed as costs in the ease, but was not liable under an implied assumpsit to the jailor.

APPEAL PROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT.

January 24, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Appellant was arrested by the sheriff of Pulaski County, by virtue of a writ of *capias ad satisfaciendum*in favor of one Hubble, and delivered to appellee as jailor of said county and was detained by him' in the jail of this county for a considerable length of time, till his board amounted to the sum. of $127.75, according to the fees as fixed by law, and this action was brought to recover said sum1 against appellant. His demurrer to the petition was overruled by the court below, and having failed to plead further judgment was rendered against him and he has appealed to this court.

The statute provides that for keeping a'person under civil process in jail and dieting, etc., the jailor shall have for each day seventy-five cents to be paid by the plaintiff, and to be taxed as costs against the defendant, etc. 1 R. S. 524. The compensation was increased to 75 cents per day by an act of 1865.

The compensation for the jailor for services such as are sued for in this action is provided for by law, and the person designated by whom' the services performed by the jailor shall be paid for, and *388to the person thus designated he must look. With the prisoners the jailor has no contract, either express or implied, and if he could recover from the prisoner the latter would be doubly responsible, first to the plaintiff in the writ, in the way of costs, and second, to the jailor on an implied assumption for the same demand, a burden which the law does not impose.

*James, for appellant.*

*Morrow, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain appellant’s demurrer fi> the petition and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS SALAZAR-PENA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50585

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01628-DMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Salazar-Pena appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month

sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Salazar-Pena’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief,

FILED

JUN 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50585

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a

pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief. We

have considered both.

Based on our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1988), we remand the case to the district court with

instructions that it strike the portion of the special condition of supervision which

requires Salazar-Pena to “report to the probation officer within 24 hours of any

reentry to the United States” because this requirement was included in the written

judgment but not imposed at sentencing. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d

1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th

Cir. 1993).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
#### Frank D. Carter v. Edwin Jaseph.

*Unliquidated claims cannot be used as a set-off.*

An unliquidated claim for rent and horse pasture cannot be set off where the amount has not been agreed upon or means furnished for definitely ascertaining what it should be.

Error to Allegan.

Submitted June 16.

Decided June 21.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Jacob V. Rogers*for appellant.

*Bronson Schoonmaker*for appellee.

An unliquidated claim cannot be set off in a suit: *Walker v. McCoy*31 Ala. 659; *Hunt v. Gilmore*59 Penn. St. 450; *Gunn v. Scovil*5 Day 113.

Marston, J.

Tbe only question in this case, is whether the defendant in an action can set off a claim for rent and for horse pasture, where the amount had not been agreed upon or fixed in any way by the parties, and we are of opinion that within the rule laid down in *Smith v. Warner*14 Mich. 157, the court properly rejected the same.

"What would be a reasonable rent, and what would be a. reasonable compensation to be paid for pasturing a horse, could not be arrived at by any mere mathematical process,, but would have to be determined from the conflicting opinions of witnesses. The claim was ¡therefore neither liquidated nor capable of being ascertained by calculation, and therefore not such an one as the statute permits .to ‘be the-subject of a set-off, not coming under any of the other statutory provisions.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred. '
Exhibit 32.2

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION 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  Annual  Report  of  Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending Novemeber 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick Cefalu, CFO of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-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.


 /s/ Patrick Cefalu
-------------------
Patrick Cefalu, CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Silas Woodson *v.*Frank Ballinger, etc.

Compromise and Settlement — Matter in Litigation.

A matter in litigation is a proper subject of compromise.

Judgment — Correction of.

Where the court errs in fixing the time from which interest shall be computed, the error cannot be corrected at a subsequent term of court.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 18, 1873.

*102
      *Lindsey, for appellant.*

*Moore, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The unsettled controversy involved in the litigation between Woodson & Ballinger was the proper and legitimate subject of compromise.

Woodson, by his letter bearing date March 9, 1867, proposed to Ballinger in definite and unmistakable terms to settle the matter by refunding without interest the amount paid to him by Ballinger under Judge Randall’s decree, and also to transfer to Ballinger all demands and claims for rent and damages growing out of his (Woodson’s) vendees having been ousted from their possession by the proceedings in the Franklin Circuit Court.

The proposition was accepted within a reasonable time, and before it had been withdrawn, or modified, hence it became from the time Woodson was notified of the acceptance a binding contract, which neither party could abandon or change without the consent of the other.

There is nothing in Woodson’s letter indicating an intention to require Ballinger to put him in possession of the Knox County lands, before refunding the moneys received under Randall’s judgment, and transferring the claims for rent. Upon the contrary, he stated that he had already employed an attorney to take the necessary steps to regain the possession of the lands, thereby indicating an intention not to look to Ballinger for the possession.

The judgment of July 2, 1869, is therefore affirmed.

We are of opinion, however, that this was a final judgment determining the rights of the parties, as well with regard to the interest as to the principal of the sum due to appellee, and that the court had no power at a subsequent term to render an additional judgment for the interest accruing .between the time when Ballinger accepted Woodson’s proposition of compromise and the rendition of the judgment of July 2, 1869. If the court erred in this judgment in fixing the time from which interest should be computed, it was error that it had no power at a subsequent term to correct. The judgment of March 27, 1870, must therefore be reversed. The cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.