alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 16, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 01410
- CV
IN RE NUSRAT PERVEEN , Relator Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 06933



### O RDER On December 22, 2017, the Court abated this cause following notification that a petition for bankruptcy concerning relator Nusrat Perveen had been filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court fo r the Northern District of Texas. Relator has informed the Court that the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay on January 5, 2018 . Relator requests that this proceeding continue

. We treat relator’s request as a motion to reinstate this proceeding. Because the stay has been lifted, the Court GRANTS the motion to reinstate, LIFTS the Court’s December 22, 2017 abatement, and DIRECTS the C lerk of the C ourt to return this cause to the Court’s active docket. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.3(a).

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARC WEINBERGER,

Appellant,

v.

ENB PROPERTIES, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-2956

[February 15, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrea Ruth Gundersen, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE14-

004643.

Kenzie N. Sadlak of Kenzie N. Sadlak, PA, Miami, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.1     Internet/Website Consulting Agreement with American IDC Corp.

                      INTERNET WEBSITE CONSULTING AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made between Bentley Communications Corporation (Bentley) with
a principal place of business at 3500 West Magnolia Boulevard, Burbank, CA 91505
and American IDC Corp. ("American IDC") with a principal place of business at
11301 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 680, Los Angeles, CA 90064.

SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED


American IDC agrees to design, develop and maintain the Bartercard USA website,
including a barter exchange, over a six month period, as well as the basic
Bentley and basic FNIN websites based o the following compensation:

PAYMENT

In consideration for the services to be performed, Bentley agrees to pay
American IDC:

         o        $5000.00 per month in advance monthly payments for six
                  consecutive months.
         o        10,000,000 144 Shares, currently valued at .0066, in advance,
                  with the agreement that such shares will not be cancelled or
                  revoked at any time.
         o        $2,000.(degree)(degree)for work done to date (design and
                  producing the Bentley and FNIN logos, websites, etc.) payable
                  to Robert Schumacher
         o        A monthly trade allowance for Robert Schumacher from a
                  Bartercard Development Account for $5,000. Additional trade
                  allowances subject to approval.
         o        Out-of-pocket expenditures and production costs (printing,
                  illustration, stock photos, etc.) are in addition to the basic
                  fee and subject to pre-approval, as are specialized software
                  (such as survey and analysis software) that may have to be
                  acquired or programmed.

This contract will run for six months and be renewable, subject to modification
by mutual agreement of both entities.

For Bentley Communications Corp:                         For American IDC Corp.

/s/ Mark Savoy                                           /s/ Gordon Lee
--------------                                           --------------
Mark Savoy, President                                    Gordon Lee, President


11301 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 680, Los Angeles, CA 90064o 310-445-2599
lnfo@Americanidc.com
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KELVIN JOHNSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1894 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 15, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERIC LAVELLE MAY, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00347-KD-C

WALTER MYERS, et al., :

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue 

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 18, 2016, is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of April 2016.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00347-KD-C Document 4 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.2

      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 Annual Report of Crystalix Group International, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Oswaldus Van Dam,  Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 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.


--------------------------------------------
Oswaldus Van Dam, Interim Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Chemtura Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 (the “Report”),I, Stephen C. Forsyth, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Stephen C. Forsyth              |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Stephen C. Forsyth                  |   |
| Executive Vice President,           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer,            |   |
|                                |   |
| Date:  March 2, 2009 |   |

 

 

This written statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000047207-DEC-201208:56 AM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7837
LARRY S. WILLIAMS-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES DUNNING, Sheriff, Alexandria Detention Center; RICHARD R. RUSCAK, Undersheriff, Alexandria Detention Center; DEBRA L. PIERSON, Captain of Security, Alexandria Detention Center; JOHN L. GRIGGS, Captain for Inmate Service, Alexandria Detention Center; SERGEANT REYNOLDS, Watch Commander (A-1), Alexandria Detention Center; DEPUTY JACOBSON (A-1), Alexandria Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees, and C. S. CHAPMAN, Deputy, (A-1), Alexandria Detention Center; EDWARD MURRAY, Director for the Department of Corrections, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-93-698-N) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 19962 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry S. Williams-El, Appellant Pro Se. Jack L. Gould, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on Oct. 4, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on Nov. 15, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprivesthis court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Trintiy3 Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steven D. Hargreaves, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: April 14, 2004                   /s/  Steven D. Hargreaves
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        By:  Steven D. Hargreaves
                                        Its:  Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Trinity3 Corporation and will be retained by Trinity3 Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Xand Corporation, Appellant, v Reliable Systems Alternatives Corporation, Respondent.

[827 NYS2d 269]

*850In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud in the inducement, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated May 8, 2006, which granted the defendant’s oral application to hold it in contempt of court and to strike the complaint for its failure to comply with a prior court order, imposed a fine in the sum of $250, and set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages with respect to the defendant’s counterclaim. By decision and order on motion dated July 12, 2006, enforcement of the order dated May 5, 2006 was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the oral application is denied, and the fine is vacated.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756, a contempt application must be in writing, must be made upon at least 10 days’ notice, and must contain on its face the statutory warning that “failure to appear in court may result in . . . immediate arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court” (Judiciary Law § 756). Since the defendant’s oral application failed to comply with any of these procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court erred when it punished the plaintiff for contempt for failing to comply with its prior order *(see Matter of Angel Marie L.,*8 AD3d 669 [2004]; *Matter of P&N Tiffany Props. v Williams,*302 AD2d 466 [2003]; *Cappello v Cappello,*274 AD2d 538 [2000]).

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, that branch of the defendant’s oral application which was to strike the complaint based upon the plaintiffs failure to comply with court-ordered discovery should have been denied in the absence of notice and an opportunity to be heard *(see Postel v New York Univ. Hosp.,*262 AD2d 40, 42 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WANDA RANDOLPH, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0344-WS-N

 )

JL HOLDINGS I, LLC, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

 ORDER

This action was brought by Wanda Randolph and Dennis Dragotta. 

Randolph has filed a motion to dismiss the action with prejudice, (Doc. 26), to 

which the defendants consent. (Doc. 30). 

Mr. Dragotta died on October 26, 2015. (Doc. 25). Defense counsel state 

they reached a settlement with Plaintiffs’ counsel before they knew of his death. 

(Doc. 30). Mr. Dragotta’s widow states that he left no will or assets requiring 

probating, that she does not intend to probate the estate or seek letters of 

representation, and that his relatives have not contested her decision or disputed 

that she is authorized to speak for the estate. She asserts that the defendants 

“ha[ve] agreed to very substantial repairs” and that, “as far as Dennis Dragotta is 

concerned,” the case “is concluded other than the Court dismissing it,” which she 

urges the Court to do. (Doc. 29).

The Court requested plaintiffs’ counsel to provide “a statement from an 

authorized representative of the estate: (1) establishing his or her authority to 

speak for the estate and the basis of such authority; and (2) stating the estate’s 

intentions as to pursuit of this litigation.” (Doc. 28). The plaintiffs responded 

with Mrs. Dragotta’s affidavit. For lack of legal briefing from counsel, the Court 

Case 1:15-cv-00344-WS-N Document 31 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 2
2

is unable to conclude from her affidavit that Mrs. Dragotta has lawful authority to 

bind the estate to a dismissal of the action. 

The suggestion of death was filed and served October 30, 2015. (Doc. 25). 

“If the motion [for substitution] is not made within 90 days after service of a 

statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be 

dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Failing a request for substitution, then, this 

action as to Mr. Dragotta will be ripe for dismissal on or about January 29, 2016. 

The Court deems it the prudent course to retain this action as to Mr. Dragotta until 

that date; if no motion for substitution is made by January 28, 2016, the Court will 

dismiss the action as to him pursuant to Rule 25.

For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Randolph’s motion to dismiss is 

granted in part. This action as to Ms. Randolph is dismissed with prejudice. 

To the extent it seeks dismissal of the action as to Mr. Dragotta, the motion is 

denied. This action as to Mr. Dragotta is stayed (other than for purposes of filing 

a motion for substitution) until further order of the Court.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00344-WS-N Document 31 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 2