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

FOURTH DISTRICT

CATHY SUKER and JOHNNY SUKER,

Appellants,

v.

WHITE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and PSL DONUTS, LLC,

Appellees.

No. 4D15-1350

[ June 8, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; James W. Midelis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562013CA003123.

William T. Viergever of Sonneborn Rutter & Cooney, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Joan Carlos Wizel, Amir Ghaeenzadeh and Shaun Robert Koby of 

Lydecker Diaz, Miami, for Appellee PSL Donuts, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal stems from a slip and fall accident that occurred in front of 

a Dunkin Donuts operated by defendant PSL Donuts, LLC. The plaintiffs, 

Cathy and Johnny Suker, appeal the final summary judgment entered in 

favor of the defendant.1 The trial court granted summary judgment based 

on Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2013), finding that the plaintiffs 

failed to present any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the 

defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions or that 

the dangerous conditions occurred with regularity and were therefore 

foreseeable. We reverse.

“A trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” 

Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). 

“In reviewing a summary judgment, [the court] must consider all record 

evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If material 

facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment must 

1 The plaintiffs do not appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of White 

Family Limited Partnership.
2

be reversed.” Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904, 910 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Mills v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

In this case, where plaintiffs filed the depositions of three witnesses, 

including the deposition of an employee of the defendant, that tended to 

show the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous 

conditions that existed at the tiled entrance to the establishment when the 

tile was wet, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remained 

and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the 

defendant. We also find the defendant’s alternative arguments for 

affirming the summary judgment to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 Certification of the Principal Executive Officer of
Videotron Ltd.
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Robert DépatieName: Robert Dépatie
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### State v. Cansler

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 692

No. 013P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-614)

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Dismissed *Ex Mero Motu*01/25/07

2. Denied 01/25/07
#### Fernando C. Dias, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[973 NYS2d 210]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered August 1, 2012, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, employed by defendants’ subcontractor on the Second Avenue Subway Project, made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He submitted, among other things, his deposition testimony that he was directing a backfill truck over a water main trench to a utility trench, when he fell through an unshielded opening in the water main trench *(see Reavely v Yonkers Raceway Programs, Inc.,*88 AD3d 561 [1st Dept 2011]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although plaintiff’s coworker’s affidavit stated that plaintiff was directing the backfill truck to the water main trench before he fell into the trench, section 240 (1) was violated under either version of the accident *(see Romanczuk v Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co.,*72 AD3d 592, 592 [1st Dept 2010]). Further, the backfilling of the trench had not yet commenced at the time of *578plaintiffs accident. Accordingly, we reject defendants’ argument that fully shielding the trench would have been contrary to the objectives of plaintiffs work *(compare Salazar v Novalex Contr. Corp.,*18 NY3d 134, 139-140 [2011]). Nor was plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his accident. The safety devices provided— sheets of metal that partially covered the trench — were inadequate. Further, plaintiffs conduct in walking backwards while directing the truck was, at most, comparative negligence, which is not a defense under section 240 (1) *(see Vergara v SS 133 W. 21, LLC,*21 AD3d 279, 281 [1st Dept 2005]).

The evidence plaintiff offered on reply was properly submitted in response to the evidence submitted and the arguments made by defendants in their opposition papers *(see Sanford v 27-29 W. 181st St. Assn.,*300 AD2d 250, 251 [1st Dept 2002]). In any event, even if plaintiffs evidence were not considered, he would still be entitled to summary judgment. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.46**
**McAfee, Inc.**
**Independent Director Cash Compensation Plan**
**Annual Retainer Schedule**
**Category**     Board Retainer $40,000 Committee Chairman additional retainer  10,000 Lead Independent Director additional retainer  10,000 
All fees are paid quarterly. In addition, McAfee reimburses directors for reasonable travel andother expenses incurred in attending meetings or participating in professional development andeducation activities.
Furthermore, under McAfee’s current Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors non-employee directorsare automatically granted an option to purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock when they firstbecome a director. Each year after the initial grant they are entitled to receive an additionaloption grant to purchase up to 25,000 shares of our common stock. All options under this plan aregranted at the fair market value on the date of grant. The initial grant vests one-third each yearover three years from the date of grant. The subsequent grants vest in full three years from thedate of grant. All options granted under this plan become fully exercisable in the event of certainmergers, sales of assets or sales of the majority of our voting stock.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4050 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, Georgia, as the ‘‘Sergeant 

First Class Robert Lee ‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2006 

Mr. ISAKSON (for himself and Mr. CHAMBLISS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, 

Georgia, as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Robert Lee 

‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ROBERT LEE ‘‘BOBBY’’ 

4 HOLLAR, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 103 East Thompson Street in 

7 Thomaston, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4050 IS

1 ‘‘Sergeant First Class Robert Lee ‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. Post 

2 Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant First Class 

7 Robert Lee ‘Bobby’ Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1077

HUICHUN LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 21, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, 

Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Huichun Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her 

applications for relief from removal. 

Lin first challenges the determination that she failed 

to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a 

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must 

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. 

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lin cannot meet 

the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. 

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below 

that Lin failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not 

that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2011).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-15-00131- CV In re P am ela Me hl ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Filed: Mar ch 4, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

SUBSIDIARIES                                       JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
DermaQuest, Inc.                                         Pennsylvania
Health Management, Inc.                                     Delaware
MK Diabetic Support Services, Inc.                          Florida
RespiFlow, Inc.                                             Florida
Steri-Pharm, Inc.                                           New York
The PromptCare Companies, Inc.                             New Jersey
Transworld Holdings (UK), Limited                           England
  Transworld Healthcare (UK) Limited                        England
    Omnicare Ltd                                            England
      Allied Medicare Ltd                                   England
      Allied Oxycare Ltd                                    England
        Medigas Ltd                                         England
      Amcare Ltd                                            England
      Novacare Ltd                                          England
Transworld Healthcare Puerto Rico, Inc.                     Florida
Exhibit 23.2 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors of BoiseInc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-158737 and 333-150563) on Form S-8 of Boise Inc.,the registration statement (Nos. 333-166390, 333-157881, and 333-155595) on Form S-3 of Boise Inc., and the registration statement (Nos. 333-166926 and 333-166936) on Form S-4 of BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC, of our report dated March 2, 2011, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC and subsidiaries (formerly known as Aldabra Holding Sub LLC) and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), capital, and cash flows for the years endedDecember 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and for the period from January 18, 2008 (inception) through December 31, 2008, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Boise Inc. and BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boise, Idaho

March 2, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         316,784
<SECURITIES>                                   469,582
<RECEIVABLES>                                  263,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (88,547)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               675,789
<PP&E>                                         134,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                (88,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,479,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          390,124
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,387
<OTHER-SE>                                     660,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,479,394
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               683,668
<CGS>                                          126,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  695,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (130,658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (159,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (159,901)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.15)


</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 4.39  


 
 

SECURITY AGREEMENT AMENDMENT    
    


        This Security Pledge Amendment, dated as of June 4, 2003, is delivered pursuant to Section 6.1 of that certain security agreement (as amended,
amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Security Agreement"; capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such
terms in the Security Agreement), dated as of February 8, 2002, among Jacobs Entertainment, Inc. (formerly known as Gameco, Inc. the "Issuer"), the undersigned (by Joinder
Agreement dated June 14, 2002), the other Guarantors from time to time party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Trustee (in such capacity and together with any
successors in such capacity, the "Trustee"). The undersigned hereby agrees that this Pledge Amendment may be attached to the Security Agreement and that the Pledged Securities listed on this Pledge
Amendment shall be deemed to be and shall become part of the Pledged Collateral and shall secure all Secured Obligations. 


PLEDGED SECURITIES  



	ISSUER
 
	 	TYPE OF INTEREST
	 	CERTIFICATE

NO(S).
	 	NUMBER OF

SHARES
	 	PERCENTAGE OF ALL ISSUED CAPITAL OR OTHER EQUITY INTERESTS OF ISSUER
	 
	Colonial Downs, LLC	 	Membership Interests	 	1	 	n/a	 	100	%





	

COLONIAL HOLDINGS, INC., as Pledgor	
 	

 
	

By:	
 	

/s/  IAN M. STEWART      
 Ian M. Stewart, President	
 	

 
	

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee	
 	

 
	

 By:

Name:	
 	

 













QuickLinks


SECURITY AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 00-10360

Summary Calendar

_______________________

MARIA LUISA QUEVEDO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ARMY & AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, (AAFES);

BARRY D BATES, MG, Major General, USA Commander,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

3:99-CV-2056-X 

_________________________________________________________________

September 14, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Luisa Quevedo alleges that she was discriminated

against on the basis of her age and national origin by the Army Air

Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and its commander, Major General

Barry D. Bates. The district court dismissed this action without

prejudice on the grounds that AAFES and General Barry are not

proper party defendants under the relevant federal laws, Title VII

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Because neither
AAFES or General Barry is a proper defendant to this action, we

affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice.

The AAFES is part of the federal government and is

classified as a non-appropriated fund instrumentality of the

United States. See AAFES v. Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728, 102 S. Ct. 2118

(1982). As such, the AAFES shares in whatever immunity the

government may have against suit under the Constitution and

federal statutes. 

By statute, the only proper party defendant in either a

Title VII action or an Age Discrimination in Employment action

brought against the United States is the head of the agency in

which the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e16(c); Honeycutt v. Long, 861 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1988). AAFES is

an integral part of the Department of Defense and operates is

support of both the Army and Air Force. Dynes v. Army and Air

Force Exchange Service, 720 F.2d 1495, 1496 (11th Cir. 1983).

Therefore, as noted by the district court, the only proper party

defendant in this action is the head of the Department of Defense,

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen. See Honeycutt, 861 F.2d at

1349. 

Ms. Quevedo failed to name Secretary of Cohen as a

defendant in her suit, leaving the district court with no

alternative but to dismiss the case for lack of a proper party

defendant. 
Twenty-one days after the district court’s entry of its

order dismissing the case without prejudice, the PlaintiffAppellant filed a motion seeking to change defendants from AAFES

and General Bates to Secretary Cohen. A pro se party is in no way

exempted from compliance with the relevant rules of procedure and

substantive law. Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171(5th

Cir. 1991). Because Ms. Quevedo’s motion to change defendants came

after the entry of a final judgment by the district court it was

void and ineffective. 

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4076 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4076

 To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur 
   dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project 
                                 goals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2006

  Mr. Thomas introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur 
   dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project 
                                 goals.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE.

    Section 402(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
U.S.C. 15962(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking subclause (I) and 
inserting the following:
                                    ``(I)(aa) to remove at least 99 
                                percent of sulfur dioxide; or
                                    ``(bb) to emit not more than 0.04 
                                pound SO<INF>2</INF> per million Btu, 
                                based on a 30-day average;''.
                                 <all>
```