alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 19, 2022

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

________________ No. 3D20

- 0860 Lower Tribunal No. 17

- 28717

________________ 

### Miguel Pena Montes d e Oca and Patricia Ojeda , Appellant s ,
vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corp oration , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Carlos Guzman , Judge. Alexander Appellate Law P.A., and Samuel Alexander (DeLand) , for appellant s

. Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy , for appellee.

Before LOGU E, LINDSEY, and LOBREE , JJ. LINDSEY, J.2 Appellants Miguel Pena Montes de Oca and Patricia Ojeda, the insured homeowners, appeal from a final judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of Appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corp. Based on the record before us, we find no reversible error and af firm. See Empire Pro Restoration, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. , 322 So. 3d 96, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“‘ [A]n insured claiming under an all

- risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effec t. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy ’ s terms. ’ [ Kokhan v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Florida , 297 So. 3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ] (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v . Federated Nat ’ l Ins. Co. , 235 So. 3d 936, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)). ‘ If there is an exception to the exclusion, the burden once again is placed on the insured to demonstrate the exception to the exclusion. ’ E. Florida Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co. , 913 So. 2d 673, 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) . . . .”). Given the specific facts in this case, any alleged error with the jury instructions is harmless. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“ No judgment shall be set aside or reversed, or new trial granted by any court of the state in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury

. . . unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error3 complained of has re sulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. ”). Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13910]



[[Page 28280]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,845]


Broyhill Furniture, Inc., Broyhill Rutherford Distribution 
Center, Rutherfordton, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on April 24, 2009 in response 
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Broyhill Furniture, Inc., 
Broyhill Rutherfordton Distribution Center, Rutherfordton, North 
Carolina.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of May, 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13910 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications 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 American Locker Group Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the respective capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|Dated: September 4, 2007 |  |                                                                    
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | /s/EDWARD F. RUTTENBERGEdward F. Ruttenberg
Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  | /s/PAUL M. ZAIDINSPaul M. Zaidins
Chief Financial Officer          

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1378]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Applications of Avjet Corporation for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2009-1-7); Dockets DOT-
OST-2008-0224 and DOT-OST-2008-0231.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Avjet 
Corporation, fit, willing, and able, and awarding it certificates of 
public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate and foreign 
charter air transportation of persons, property and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
January 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets DOT-OST-2008-0224 and DOT-OST-2008-0231 and addressed to U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the 
parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vanessa R. Balgobin, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

Robert S. Goldner,
Special Counsel for Aviation and International Affairs.
 [FR Doc. E9-1378 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                        FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY
                       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 Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert B. Pollock, President and Chief Executive 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, based on my knowledge:

      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 12, 2004

                                      /s/ Robert B. Pollock
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Robert B. Pollock
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Chief Principal Officer)

                                       0
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1735

RELIABLE LIMOUSINE AND BUS SERVICE, LLC; RELIABLE BUS, LLC,

Petitioners,

v.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit Commission. (AP-2012-183; AP-2012-

184)

Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elyse L. Strickland, Maurice B. VerStandig, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, 

Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioners. Jeffrey M. Lehmann, 

William S. Morrow, Jr., WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT 

COMMISSION, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reliable Limousine and Bus Service, LLC, and Reliable 

Bus, LLC, petition this court for review of a Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Commission order denying, without 

prejudice, their applications for certificates of authority. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the Commission’s order. See In re: 

Reliable Limousine & Bus Serv., LLC, Nos. AP-2012-183, AP-2012-

184, Order No. 13,775 (WMATC Feb. 28, 2013). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
July 10, 2009
Via U.S. Mail and Facsimile

Kelly Haney, Principal Chief
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
P.O. Box 1498

Wewoka, OK 74850

Fax: 405-257-7209

Elizabeth Homer

Homer Law

1730 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Ste. 501
Washington, DC 20036

Fax: 202-955-5605

Re: Amendment called the Seminole Nation Public Gaming Act of 2009
Dear Chief Haney and Ms. Homer:

On June 17, 2009, Ms. Homer, on behalf of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
(Nation), requested that the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC
or Commission) review and approve the Seminole Nation Public Gaming Act of 2009
(gaming ordinance). The Nation amended the gaming ordinance on June 6, 2009, via
Resolution No. TO 2009-08. In this amendment, the Nation replaced the old gaming
ordinance with the new and updated version.

for submittingthe amendment for review and approval. If you have
ase contact Staff Attomey Rebecca Chapman at (202) 632-7003.
ig

Chairman

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1447 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.Gov

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         235,689
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,308,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,544,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,485,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,544,290
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,725)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,725)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (3.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.74)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Susan Callahan, Appellant, v Marc Ficciano, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 344]

—In a family offense proceed*954ing pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated March 21, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” *(Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; *see*Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; *Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding,*101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; *Matter of Armstrong v Ewing,*82 AD3d 1092 [2011]). The hearing court’s determination concerning the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless that determination is clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Clarke-Golding v Golding,*101 AD3d 1117 [2012]; *Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d 1178 [2010]; *Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d 1141 [2010]).

Here, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the respondent committed the family offenses of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00, 240.26; *Matter of Ford v Pitts,*30 AD3d 419 [2006]; *Matter of Strully v Schwartz,*255 AD2d 593 [1998]). Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed.

Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3389 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3389

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to exempt individuals who 
  receive certain educational assistance for service in the Selected 
 Reserve from limitations on the receipt of assistance under Post-9/11 
  Educational Assistance Program for additional service in the Armed 
                    Forces, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2010

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to exempt individuals who 
  receive certain educational assistance for service in the Selected 
 Reserve from limitations on the receipt of assistance under Post-9/11 
  Educational Assistance Program for additional service in the Armed 
                    Forces, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATION ON PERIOD OF ASSISTANCE UNDER TWO 
              OR MORE PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS 
              WHO RECEIVE EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR SERVICE IN SELECTED 
              RESERVE.

    (a) Repeal of Limitation.--Section 3695 of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The aggregate'' and 
        inserting ``Except as otherwise provided in this section, the 
        aggregate''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) In the case of an individual who served on active duty in the 
Armed Forces for not less than four years, the limitation in subsection 
(a) shall not apply with respect to the receipt by such individual of 
assistance under chapter 30 or 33 of this title, on the one hand, and 
the receipt by such individual of assistance under chapter 1606 or 1607 
of title 10, on the other hand.''.
    (b) Retroactive Application.--Subsection (c) of such section, as 
added by subsection (a) of this section, shall apply with respect to 
any individual described in such subsection (c) regardless of whether 
the individual's receipt of assistance under chapter 1606 or 1607 of 
title 10, United States Code, occurs before or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Freddie JONES, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert TAPIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-30689.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

Freddie Jones, Jr., Pensacola, FL, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Freddie Jones, Jr., federal prisoner # 16412-056, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his sentence for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Relying on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny, Jones argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal because the jury did not find drug type or quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. Insofar as Jones argues that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because relief under the latter section is “inadequate or ineffective,” such suggestion is unavailing. *See Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005); *Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX,*305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir.2002).

Jones also argues that the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2244 are unconstitutional and impermissibly deny him his constitutional right to file a habeas petition. This argument is also unavailing. *See Wesson,*305 F.3d at 346-47.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 23.4


             CONSENT OF HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.

     We hereby  consent to being named in Ashland  Inc.'s  Annual Report on
Form 10-K-A for the year ended  September  30, 2003 in the form and context
in which we are  named.  We do not  authorize  or cause the  filing of such
Annual Report and do not make or purport to make any  statement  other than
as reflected in the Annual Report.


/s/  Francine F. Rabinovitz
-------------------------------------------
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc.
November 1, 2004
#### William H. LEE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent.

No. 05-3287.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 26, 2006.

*ORDER*

The petitioner having complied with this court’s order filed May 31, 2006,

*1006IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The court’s May 8, 2006, order dismissing the appeal is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated.
Opinion filed December 4, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-14-00293-CR

____________

LARRY STEVEN HAYS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18536B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Larry Steven Hays, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated 

assault, and pursuant to the terms of the plea-bargain agreement in this case, the 

trial court made an affirmative deadly weapon finding and assessed Appellant’s 

punishment at confinement for eight years, to run concurrently with another 

conviction. We dismiss the appeal. 

This court notified Appellant by letters dated November 3, 2014, and 

November 13, 2014, that the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of 
2

Appeal indicates that this is a plea-bargain case in which Appellant has no right of 

appeal and that Appellant has waived his right of appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to 

continue the appeal. Appellant has filed a response in which he asserts that his 

trial counsel was ineffective and that he was informed by the trial court that he had 

a right to appeal and that he could “change [his] plea back” to not guilty.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea-bargain case in which the 

punishment does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a 

defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion 

filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal.” The documents on file in this case reflect that Appellant entered into a 

plea bargain, that his punishment was assessed in accordance with the plea bargain, 

that Appellant affirmatively waived his right to appeal, and that the trial court did 

not give Appellant permission to appeal. The trial court’s certification was signed 

by Appellant, his trial counsel, and the judge of the trial court. The certification

shows both that Appellant waived his right of appeal and that this is a plea-bargain 

case in which Appellant has no right of appeal. The documents on file in this court

support the trial court’s certification and show that the certification is not defective. 

See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we 

must dismiss this appeal without further action. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. 

State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 

December 4, 2014 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

The
Company has the following subsidiaries including significant subsidiaries as defined in
Regulation S-X, each incorporated in the jurisdiction stated opposite its name. All of the
following subsidiaries are 100% owned by the Company with the exception of Speedco, Inc.
which is 87.5% owned. The Company has additional subsidiaries, which, if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant
subsidiary as such term is defined in Regulation S-X.

|Name of Subsidiary              | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|Bandag A.G                      | Switzerland                  
|Bandag Canada Ltd.              | Canada                       
|Bandag Europe N.V               | Belgium                      
|Bandag do Brasil Ltda           | Brazil                       
|Bandag B.V                      | Netherlands                  
|Bandag de Mexico, S.A. de C.V   | Mexico                       
|Open Road Technologies, Inc.    | Iowa                         
|Speedco, Inc.                   | Indiana                      
|Tire Distribution Systems, Inc. | Delaware
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2019

No. 04-16-00671-CR

Luis Alfredo SERVIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR5175

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Leave to file Second Corrected Amended Opening Brief is 

hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court