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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-1260

_____________________________

COMCAST CORPORATION and

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 

CO./HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

BERNARD SMALLS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of 

Compensation Claims.

Edward R. Almeyda, Judge.

Date of Accident: November 26, 2016.

December 27, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Therese A. Savona and Neil Ambekar of Cole Scott & Kissane, 

P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.

William F. Souza of Law Offices of William F. Souza, P.A., North 

Miami Beach, for Appellee.
NO. 07-05-0201-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 1, 2006

	______________________________

	ALBERT LAWRENCE EHRET, 

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 50,187-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Albert Lawrence Ehret (appellant) appeals his conviction for possessing marihuana.  Via two issues, he contends that the trial court erred in 1) denying his motion to suppress evidence and admitting evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and 2) denying him “his absolute right to create a bill of exception.”  We overrule each issue and affirm the judgment.  

	Motion to Suppress and Admission of Evidence

	Regarding the initial point, we note that when the State proffered, at trial, the evidence at issue, appellant uttered that he had no objection to its admission.  By so stating, he waived any complaint he had about the admissibility of the evidence.  Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (holding that while a defendant need not object to the admission of evidence at trial once his motion to suppress is overruled, stating at trial that he has no objection to its admission waives any complaint he had); Flores v. State, 129 S.W.3d 169, 171-72 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (stating the same).

	Bill of Exceptions

	Regarding the chance to make a bill of exceptions, the evidence appellant allegedly believed relevant concerned his motion to suppress.  It allegedly encompassed the “method the troopers used to obtain consent to search, inconsistent testimony as to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and the privacy interests the passengers had in the vehicle.”  Assuming arguendo that the trial court did hamper appellant’s ability to perfect a bill, we cannot see how it harmed him.  Again, he waived any complaint he had about the admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of the detention and search.  Having waived any complaint about the admission of the evidence, how it was acquired no longer matters.  And, the topics to be covered in the bill of exceptions pertained to how the State acquired it.  

	Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

							Brian Quinn

						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CLAUDE D. CLARK,

Petitioner

v.

WALTER R. PEUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 223 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of December, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 140
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 141
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 142
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 143
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 144
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 145
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 146
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 147
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 148
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 149
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 150
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 151
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 152
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 153
Case 2:11-cv-03325-JLL Document 11 Filed 12/19/11 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 154
THE MCDANIEL MLAW FIRM, PC

WWW.MCDLAWPC.COM

54 MAIN STREET 

HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 

(201) 845-3232 

(201) 845-3777 FAX

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING

350 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3304 

NEW YORK, NY 10118 

(212) 514-8080 

(212) 514-8282 FAX

 February 3, 2012 

VIA ECF & NEW JERSEY LAWYERS SERVICE

The Honorable Joseph A. Dickson 

United States Magistrate Judge 

United States District Court 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 

50 Walnut Street 

Newark, NJ 07101 

 Re: Baseprotect UG, Ltd. v. John Does 1-X (Weekend) 

 Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-03621(CCC)(JAD) 

 

Dear Judge Dickson: 

 We have received a Motion to Quash a Subpoena issued to the movant’s Internet 

Service Provider with reference to information associated with the movant’s Internet 

account and to Dismiss the above-referenced case against the movant (ECF Document 

No. 120). The movant has not included his or her Internet Protocol (IP) address in the 

moving papers. 

 We are prepared to withdraw the subpoena insofar as information is sought 

related to this particular account and submit a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without 

Prejudice in relation to this movant. We are unable to effectuate this process without 

the movant’s IP address. We do not require that the movant provide other personally 

identifiable information, but the IP address is necessary to communicate with the 

Internet Service Provider and to identify the movant among the other defendants. 

 Therefore, we request that this Court enter an order compelling the movant to 

disclose their IP address. We have enclosed a proposed form of order for the Court’s 

convenience. 

JAY R. MCDANIEL

ADMITTED IN NJ & NY 

JRMCDANIEL@MCDLAWPC.COM

PLEASE REPLY TO

NEW JERSEY OFFICE

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 121 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 993
Respectfully submitted, 

Jay R. McDaniel

Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 121 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 994
[No. 54685-6-I.

Division One.

December 19, 2005.]

#### Wartenburg Trust, *Respondent,*v. Jerry R. Elrod et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 04-2-00744-1, David A. Nichols, J., entered July 28, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Coleman and Agid, JJ.
Exhibit 32



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 Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Stephen Wong, Chief Financial Officer, and Raj Sabhlok, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                                                                           
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Stephen Wong                                                          
|      |  | Stephen Wong President and Chief Executive Officer                        
|      | 
|Date: |  | April 6, 2005                                                             
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Raj Sabhlok                                                           
|      |  | Raj Sabhlok                                                               
|      |  | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Corporate Development
|      | 
|Date: |  | April 6, 2005
1

1927821.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARY ANN SIVOLELLA, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

AXA EQUITABLE FUNDS 

MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Civ. A. No. 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA 

 

GLENN D. SANFORD, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

AXA EQUITABLE FUNDS 

MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Civ. A. No. 3:13-cv-00312-PGS-DEA

NOTICE OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Return Date: Jan. 4, 2016 

TO: Clerk, United States District Court for 

the District of New Jersey, 

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse 

402 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08608 

Robert Hora, Esq. 

Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP 

1 Chase Manhattan Plaza 

New York, NY 10005 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 186 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 12082
2

1927821.1 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 4, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, attorneys for the above-captioned Plaintiffs, 

shall move before the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan, District Judge for the United 

States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Clarkson S. Fisher Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608, 

for entry of an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to (1) allow Plaintiffs to 

question the members of the EQ Advisors Trust Board of Trustees (“EQAT 

Board”) about communications between the EQAT Board and counsel to FMG; (2) 

bar FMG from introducing any evidence that the EQAT Board was careful and 

conscientious based on its reliance on the advice of counsel; (3) bar Defense 

Expert Marianne Smythe, Esq. from offering certain opinions at trial; (4) preclude 

the admission of evidence regarding transfer agency and distribution services and 

expenses. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this motion, 

Plaintiffs shall rely upon this Notice of Motion, the supporting brief and 

Declaration of Arnold C. Lakind, all of which are filed simultaneously. 

 

 

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 186 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 12083
3

1927821.1 

Dated: December 11, 2015 By: /s/Arnold C. Lakind 

 SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, 

 BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, P.C. 

 101 Grovers Mill Rd. Ste. 200 

 Lawrenceville, N.J. 08648 

 Tel. (609) 275-0400 

 Fax. (609) 275-4511 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 186 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 12084
S05F1980.

#### BULAT v. BULAT.

(626 SE2d 504)

SEARS, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Joseph Bulat, appeals from the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the appellee, Starla Bulat.1 Mr. Bulat contends that the trial court’s award was not based on competent, admissible evidence, and therefore should be reversed. We disagree.

The record shows that the parties agreed to an informal procedure for determining the attorney fees issue, and that, pursuant to that procedure, the parties agreed that Ms. Bulat would support her request for fees with an itemized bill from her attorney. Mr. Bulat voiced no objection to that procedure, and thus is barred from objecting to the itemized bill on appeal. Moreover, a trial court may award attorney fees under OCGA § 19-6-2 based on the knowledge of the financial circumstances of the parties that it has acquired during the divorce proceedings2 and based on its ability to “plac[e] a value on *311legal services rendered by an attorney in a divorce action.”3 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s award of attorney fees.

Decided February 13, 2006

Reconsideration denied March 13, 2006.

*McKenney & Froelich, David M. Kupsky,*for appellant.

*Sandra H. Taylor,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*

1

 Mr. Bulat’s application for discretionary appeal was automatically granted under this Court’s pilot project in domestic cases. See *Wright v. Wright,*277 Ga. 133 (587 SE2d 600) (2003).

2

 See *Bradley v. Bradley,*233 Ga. 83, 84-85 (210 SE2d 1) (1974).

3

*Webster v. Webster,*250 Ga. 57, 58 (295 SE2d 828) (1982).
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 166-2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 5421
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 166-2 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 5422
Exhibit 21

                              List of Subsidiaries


         Name of Subsidiary                        Jurisdiction of Organization
         --------------------------                -----------------------------
         Spear & Jackson plc                                England
         Bowers Group, plc                                  England
         Offertower plc                                     England
         Magnacut Limited                                   England
         Coventry Gauge Limited                             England
         Neill Tools Limited                                England
         James Neill Holdings Limited                       England
         Eclipse Magnetics Limited                          England
         Markbalance plc                                    England
         Spear & Jackson Holdings Limited                   England
         Societe Neill France S.A.                          France
         Spear & Jackson Garden Products Limited            England
         Spear & Jackson France SA                          France
         James Neill Canada Inc.                            Canada
         James Neill (New Zealand) Limited                  New Zealand
         James Neill USA Inc.                               Illinois
         Bowers Metrology Limited                           England
         Bowers Metrology (UK) Limited                      England
         CV Instruments Limited                             England
         Spear & Jackson, Inc.                              Florida
         S&J Acquisition Corp.                              Florida
         Megatools Ltd.                                     Canada
         Magatools USA, Inc.                                Washington
Exhibit
32.01
  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 Quarterly Report of PlayBox (US) Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gideon
Jung, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. � 1350, as adopted pursuant to � 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
  Dated: June
      2, 2009
                        
                        
                        /s/
      Gideon
      JungBy:
      Gideon Jung
                          Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 1
**Exhibit 10.2**

 
| September 29, 2008                  | **THERMO**            |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| ** **                               | TELECOM PARTNERS, LLC |
| Globalstar, Inc.                    | CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC |
| 461 South Milpitas  Blvd.                | COGENERATION, LP      |
| Milpitas, CA 95035                       | DEVELOPMENT, INC      |
|                                     | PROPERTIES, LLC       |
| Attention:  Chief Financial Officer | CREDIT, LLC           |

 
| SUBJECT: |   | Deferral of Interest  under Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement |
|----------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     |   | Dated December 17,  2007 (the “Credit Agreement”)         |

 

Gentlemen:

 

This letter confirms ourverbal agreement reached on or about May 21, 2008 that, effective on May 26,2008 and until further notice is given by Thermo Funding Company, Globalstarshould not make any payments with respect to interest becoming due to ThermoFunding under Section 5.1(d) of the Credit Agreement.  We further agreed that:  (i) such deferred interest (“OutstandingInterest”) will continue to accrue without limiting the credit otherwiseavailable to Globalstar under the Credit Agreement; (ii) interest on theOutstanding Interest will, from the effective date of the deferral until fullypaid, also accrue at the same rate as applicable to the underlying Loan givingrise to the Outstanding Interest; (iii) such interest on interest will com-poundand be added to the applicable Outstanding Interest on December 31, 2008and annually thereafter; (iv) the Outstanding Interest and the interestthereon will become payable 45 days after notice is given by Thermo Funding asabove provided; and (v) demand for and receipt of payment as aboveprovided will not constitute a prepayment of the Loans under Sections 2.4 and4.4 of the Credit Agreement.

 

Thermo Funding Company,as Administrative Agent and Lender, acknowledges that no action taken byGlobalstar pursuant to this letter shall constitute an Event of Default under Section 12.1of the Credit Agreement.  Termscapitalized but not defined in this letter shall have the meanings given tosuch terms in the Credit Agreement.

 

For avoidance of doubt,our agreement is for deferral of payment only, and except to the limited extentexpressly stated in this letter no principal or interest payment obligationsare extinguished, waived, or compromised in any manner whatsoever.

 

Please acknowledge youragreement to the foregoing by signing, dating and returning a copy of thisletter to me.

 

Sincerely,

 

THERMO FUNDING COMPANYLLC

 
| /s/ James Monroe III |   |
|----------------------|--------|
|                 |   |
| James Monroe III     |   |
| Manager              |   |

 

Acknowledged and agreedthis 29th day of September, 2008.

 

GLOBALSTAR, INC.

 
| /s/ Fuad Ahmad          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| Fuad Ahmad              |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### Cohen *v.*LaRoche, and *vice versa.*

Atkinson, J. — The charge of the court was full and accurate as a whole; there was no error in that part of the charge complained of; the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the alleged newly discovered evidence is not of such a character as ought to have produced a different result.

January 28, 1895.

Action on contract. Before Judge MacDonell. City court of Savannah. November term, 1893.

LaRoche, a broker in real estate, stocks and bonds, sued Cohen, alleging that he contracted to pay plaintiff* $500 upon his getting Hartridge, then owner of some of the stock and bonds of the Savannah Times Publishing Company, to sell to Cohen all his said stock and bonds for $5,000; that in pursuance of the contract plaintiff’ did get Hartridge to consent to make the sale to Cohen at the price named, and the sale was made to Cohen; but that he refused to pay plaintiff" the $500. Hpon these allegations the evidence was conflicting; the *563testimony of plaintiff and of Hartridge supporting the same. The jury found for plaintiff, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The motion contained the general grounds, a ground of newly discovered evidence, and an assignment of error on the following charge to the jury, as being misleading and unwarranted by the evidence: “If LaRoche did get Hartridge to agree to sell to Cohen his stock and bonds for the sum of $5,000, and Cohen called at his office for the purpose of having the sale drawn up, and while there Cohen substituted some other purchaser; if you believe Platshek was substituted by Cohen in place of himself; and if you further believe that Cohen asked for several days in which to' get up the purchase-money, and that this was consented to by Hartridge, and that he was then in a situation to deliver the stock and bonds, then the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict.” There was a cross-bill of exceptions to a refusal to dismiss the motion for new trial.

*562*Judgment affirmed.*

*Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.*

*563O’Connor & O’Byrne, for Cohen.

McAlpin & LaRoche, *contra.*
Exhibit 99





Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


Of Title 18 of the
United States Code





We, Paul H. Saunders and Edward M. Jasinski, the Chief Executive Officer and Director of
Fund Administration, respectively, of James River Management Corp., General Partner for the Four Seasons Fund II LP, certify that (i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Four Seasons Fund II LP.








/s/   PAUL H. SAUNDERSPaul H. Saunders,Chief Executive Officer/s/  EDWARD M. JASINSKIEdward M. Jasinski,Director of Fund AdministrationAugust 8, 2002
NOTE: Data are collected in March and refer to the preceding calendar year. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 5-6. Year-round, full-time work has trended up

30

40

50

60

70

80

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

30

40

50

60

70

80

Men

Women

Percent working year round, full time

Chart 5-6. Year-round, full-time work has trended up

• Among women who work at some time during the year, the proportion working 

year round (50-52 weeks) and full time (35 hours or more per week) has grown 

over the past several decades. In part, this trend reflects women’s movement 

into occupations that are typified by year-round, full-time work. 

• The proportion of men working year round and full time—which is 

considerably higher than that for women—showed little definite movement 

until the early 1980s. Since then, it has trended upward.
Chart 3-9. Declining proportions of men have worked for 

their current employer for 10 years or longer

19

37

51

58

62

66 66

48

12

25

35

43

50 51 48 47

0

20

40

60

80

30 to 34

years

35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 years

and over

1983 2006

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent with 10 or more 

years of tenure

Age

Chart 3-9. Declining proportions of men have worked for 

their current employer for 10 years or longer

• In nearly every age group, the proportion of men who worked for their current 

employer for 10 years or longer declined between 1983 and 2006.

• Many perceive longevity with an employer as a measure of employment 

stability. Hence, long tenure and rising tenure are viewed as “good” and short 

tenure and falling tenure as “bad.” Tenure can be an ambiguous indicator, 

however. For example, many people change employers voluntarily to take 

better jobs. If the economy is performing well, more workers have 

opportunities to change jobs voluntarily, possibly resulting in a decline in 

tenure.
Case 2:11-cr-00525-SDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cr-00525-SDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 31