alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2374

CHARLENE JANSON,

Plaintiff − Appellee,

v.

REITHOFFER SHOWS, INC.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:19−cv−00079−DLB)

Submitted: October 5, 2022 Decided: June 1, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: David A. Skomba, Miranda D. Russell, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK, P.C., 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael J. Winkelman, MCCARTHY, 

WINKELMAN, MESTER, OFFUTT, LLP, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Reithoffer Shows, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its Rule 50 motions for 

judgment as a matter of law. The jury found that Reithoffer’s negligence proximately 

caused Charlene Janson’s injury. And although the jury also found Janson was 

contributorily negligent, it awarded her damages, finding that Reithoffer had the last clear 

chance to avoid her injury but failed to do so. Before the case was submitted to the jury, 

Reithoffer argued that there was insufficient evidence to submit the questions whether 

Reithoffer’s negligence proximately caused Janson’s injury and whether Reithoffer had the 

last clear chance to avoid the injury. After the district court entered judgment, Reithoffer 

renewed its motion on last-clear-chance grounds. The district court denied those motions. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, for the 

reasons identified in the district court’s decision, see Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc., No. 

DLB-19-79, 2021 WL 5280894 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2021), we affirm. And we dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2374 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Auditors 

The Board of Directors 

COMFORCE Corporation: 

 

We consent toincorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-47941 and 333-52356) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-32271, 333-46787, 333-82199, 333-56962 and 333-104730) of COMFORCE Corporation and subsidiaries ofour report dated March 15, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of COMFORCE Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 26, 2004 and December 28, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ (deficit)equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 26, 2004, which report appears in the December 26, 2004 annual report on Form10-K of COMFORCE Corporation. 

 

 

Melville, New York 

March 24, 2005 

 

E-5
From: Jon Mooney <Jon.Mooney@mia.com.au>

Date: July 16, 2013, 8:06:27 PM EDT

To: "p.adderton@mandalaydigital.com" <p.adderton@mandalaydigital.com>, Andrew Schleimer <aschleimer@trinadcapital.com>

Cc: "andrew.kitchen@imadlak.com" <andrew.kitchen@imadlak.com>

Subject: Email confirmation re Amendment #1 to Convertible Note Deed


 


Peter & Andrew,


For added clarity, this email confirms our agreement, as of
July 11, 2013, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Amendment No. 1, dated and effective July 11, 2013, by and between
Digital Turbine Australia Pty. Ltd, Zingo (Aust) Pty and Mandalay Digital Group, Inc. (the “Company”), under no circumstances
will the Amendment obligate the Company to issue any shares to the extent that as a result thereof more than 19.99% of the common
stock or voting power outstanding immediately before the enactment of Amendment 1 are (a) issued in the aggregate pursuant to Amendment
1 or the transactions contemplated thereby or (b) owned by any New Stockholder (or any affiliate thereof, or any group of such
New Stockholder and their affiliates).


 


In addition, Zingo (Aust) Pty. agrees and acknowledges that
the Formula in Section 6 of the Amendment No. 1 is as follows: 


N = RP x (A x B) / OP


Whereby "OP" means the Offered Price as such term
is defined in the Amendment No. 1. 


 


Regards,


Jon Mooney


For and behalf of Zingo (Aust) Pty Ltd


  









 



IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To comply with requirements imposed
by the Department of the Treasury, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used, and that it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer, and (ii) supporting the promotion or marketing of any transactions or
matters addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.manatt.com/Expertise.aspx?id=4870
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         450,407
<SECURITIES>                                 1,957,648
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               893,809
<PP&E>                                       1,514,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 551,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,911,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          370,269
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,761,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,911,591
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               562,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (830,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (830,293)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (830,293)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (32.15)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (32.15)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:July 28, 2009
Order entered November 2 4 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 19

- 00851

- CR

DESMOND RENARD FISHE R, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the C r i m in al District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 19

- 00024

- Y

O RDER Before Justices Myers, Pedersen

, III, and Car lyle

Before the Court is former co u nsel ’s November 14, 2020 letter which we

will treat as a motion to reconsider our No vember 13, 2020 order

. We D E N Y th e

motion.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of t h is order, by electronic

transmission, to the Honorable Chika Anyiam, Presiding Judge, Criminal District

C o urt No. 7 ; to Valencia Bush ; and to counsel for t he parties.

/s/ C ORY L. CARLYLE
JU STICE
Exhibit 32.4
                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-D  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   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 Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of November, 2007.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-D
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-D and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-D and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1126
MARY HART; JOSEPH HART, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusARTHUR ELDER; BERNETT & JACKSON REALTY, INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-2414-WMN) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 30, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Hart, Joseph Hart, Appellants Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in their breach of contract action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hart v. Elder , No. CA-96-2414-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 7, 1998). Appellants were not entitled to a jury trial because their claims were properly decided by the district court on summary judgment. Also, Appellants failed to raise their defamation claim before the district court, and the claim may not be raised before this court for the first time on appeal. See Spencer v. Murray , 5 F.3d 758, 762 (4th Cir. 1993). Similarly, we decline to review Appellants' request for relief for their children and neighbors because thesepeople were not parties to the complaint. Finally, we deny Appellants' Omnibus Motion seeking a stay of proceedings in the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Frederick J. Platek et al., Respondents, v Town of Hamburg et al., Defendants, and Allstate Indemnity Company, Appellant.

Decided November 27, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
|   | 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/ Carrie L. Majeski                                                                                      |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Carrie      L. Majeski, President, Chief Executive Officer(principal      executive and financial officer) |
|   |   |                                                                                                       |
|   |   | Date:       2/27/2009                                                                                 |

----
# /577-/y ORIGINAL IN THE TFKA5 Court- Of CCttmmL APPg AL5 RECEIVED



## JAN 2 6 2015 P^TtoN foR L)\3tft£TtOktMH REVftW COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS 

### DEBRASP,SAK'^ARL£5 MfcRTZN v. THESTATZOF T&LtrS * APPtM under dhnp-fcr G^.Q[ 72*. dC P. L 04/<?oTTrJ^torn't^r^r ?,2Ql<f FILED IN

_ __ COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

### IN f Ht 3£CoflD totTTOFAPPfcA-LS FFR 062^ , SECoHO 01317? itr <f f£ vc/hs 

### «*1V fcelKnftp , 5«,¥* «M) Abel Ac0S,a' Cie'k Ofi-te wfApq*»kJiAA/J0.l0l£L 

# ORfKL AMumenrsjuJ**TM WJZfB: RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FEB 04 2015 

## 'dpi) Abel Acosta, Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

STEWART MATTHEW, § 

§ No. 613, 2015 

 Plaintiff-Below, § 

 Appellant, § 

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery 

v. § of the State of Delaware 

 § 

CHRISTOPHE LAUDAMIEL, § C.A. No. 5957 

FLÄKT WOODS GROUP SA, § 

FLÄKT WOODS LIMITED and § 

DREAMAIR LLC, § 

 § 

 Defendants-Below, § 

 Appellees. § 

Submitted: June 8, 2016 

Decided: June 22, 2016 

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

ORDER

 This 22nd day of June, 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the final judgment of the Court of 

Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its posttrial Memorandum Opinion dated September 28, 2015. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the October 21, 2015 judgment 

of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

 Justice
Exhibit 32.1

Certification



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
> 
> (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
> 
> (3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.

|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation                        
|------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|       | General Partner                                                  
|       |                                                                  
|       |                                                                  
|       | /S/ Brenda G. Gujral                                             
|       |                                                                  
|Name:  | Brenda G. Gujral                                                 
|Title: | President of the General Partner and                             
|       | principal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P
|Date:  | November 12, 2004
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KATHREIN GRADY

, Appellant,

v.

CARL H. LINDER, ESQ, an Individual; and GREENSPOON MARDER,
LLP, a Florida Limited Liability Partnership

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2023

- 1754

[ May 9, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michele Towbin Singer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 23

- 001644 CACE (21)

.

David Di Pietro and R o d olfo Mayor of Di Pietro Partners, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, and Kenneth R. Mikos of La w Office of Kenneth R. Mikos, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

John H. Pelzer of Greenspoon Marder LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Jose Riguera of Keller Landsberg, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., C IKLIN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0523 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL VOYLES,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 16 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 11 2023

07/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0523
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM OROAMERICA,
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED MAY 1, 1998
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1998
<CASH>                                          35,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,864
<INVENTORY>                                     11,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,705
<PP&E>                                          22,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,645
<SALES>                                         42,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,477
<CGS>                                           33,029
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   165
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,887
<INCOME-TAX>                                       736
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 3(e) CONSTELLATION ENERGY
GROUP, INC.  ARTICLES SUPPLEMENTARY  Constellation
Energy Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Corporation), hereby
certifies to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland,
that:  FIRST:  Under the power contained in Title 3,
Subtitle 8 of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the MGCL), the
Corporation, by resolutions duly adopted by its Board of Directors, has elected
to become subject to Section 3-804 (b) and (c) of the MGCL.  SECOND:  The resolutions described above provide
that, notwithstanding any other provision in the charter or the by-laws of the
Corporation to the contrary, the Corporation elects to be subject to Section
3-804 (b) and (c) of the MGCL, the repeal of which may be effected only by the
means authorized by Section 3-802(b)(3) of the MGCL.  Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3-804(b) the number of directors
of the Corporation shall be fixed only by vote of the board of directors.  Pursuant to Section 3-804(c): (i) any
vacancy on the board of directors of the Corporation may be filled only by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if
the remaining directors do not constitute a quorum; and (ii) any director
elected to fill a vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the full term
of the class of directors in which the vacancy occurred, and until a successor
is elected and qualified.  THIRD:  The election by the Corporation to be subject to Sections
3-804(b) and (c) as set forth in these Articles Supplementary has been approved
by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in the manner and by the vote
required by law.  FOURTH:  The undersigned Chairman of the Board of the
Corporation acknowledges these Articles Supplementary to be the corporate act
of the Corporation and, as to all matters or facts required to be verified
under oath, the undersigned Chairman of the Board acknowledges that, to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief, these matters and facts are true
in all material respects and that this statement is made under the penalties
for perjury.  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles Supplementary to be
executed under seal in its name and on its behalf by its Chairman of the Board
and attested by its Vice President and Secretary on this 20th day of November,
2001.  ATTEST:                                                                               CONSTELLATION
ENERGY GROUP,
INC.  By: David A. Brune                                                             By:
Christian H. Poindexter (SEAL) Vice
President and Secretary                                             Chairman of The Board