alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

SARASOTA ESTATE & JEWELRY ) 

BUYERS, INC.; HAIEL A. SUWAITY; ) 

ABED SUWAITY; and AKMS ) 

INTERNATIONAL CORP., ) 

 ) 

 Appellants, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-6025 

 ) 

GEORGE KANE and AMY KANE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellees. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed February 20, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Charles E. Williams, Judge. 

Arnold D. Levine and Robert H. MacKenzie 

of Arnold D. Levine & Associates, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellants. 

Robert E. Messick and Mark C. Dungan of 

Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & 

Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellees. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Sarasota Estate & Jewelry Buyers, Inc. ("Sarasota Estate") and Haiel A. 

Suwaity, Abed Suwaity, and AKMS International Corporation (collectively "the 

Suwaitys") appeal a judgment following violation of a settlement agreement. The record 
- 2 - 

does not demonstrate that the Suwaitys were served with the Verified Motion for Entry 

of Final Judgment or the Notice of Hearing upon the Verified Motion; the record reflects 

service as to Sarasota Estate. Because the record does not demonstrate that the 

Suwaitys were served with legally sufficient notice, we are compelled to conclude the 

Suwaitys were denied due process of law by having judgment entered against them. 

Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings as to these parties. 

See Am. Capital Network v. Command Credit Corp., 707 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 

1998) (citing Special's Trading Co. v. Int'l Consumer Corp., 701 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 1997)). We affirm the remaining issue without comment. 

 Affirmed in part and reversed in part as to Haiel and Abed Suwaity and 

AKMS International Corp.; affirmed as to Sarasota Estate and Jewelry Buyers, Inc. 

CASANUEVA and CRENSHAW, JJ., and SABELLA, CHRISTOPHER C., ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, Concur.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 13 - 00419 - CR EDWARD CHARLES KELLY , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 222nd District Court Deaf Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. CR

- 13H - 080, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding May 29 , 2014 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Edward Charles Kelly appeals his conviction for assault ing a public servant . Via this appeal, he challeng es the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress
. Allegedly, he was the victim of an illegal traffic stop. During that s top, the deputy discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for appellant’s arrest. When effort was made to enforce that warrant, appellant attempted to flee. That resulted in a physical altercation between appellant and the deputy. That physical altercation gave rise to the charge for which appellant was convicted. Appellan t argues that because the initial stop was illegal, evidence of t he ensuing altercation should have been suppressed. We affirm the judgment.2

We begin our analysis by referring to our opinion in Bryant v. State , 253 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. App.
— Amarill o 2008, pet. dism’d). Therein , we held that “ a person who is stopped or detained illegally is not immunized from prosecution for crimes committed during his detention period .” Id. at 812 ; see also Coleman v. State , No. 07 - 11 - 00305 - CR, 2012 Tex. App. L EXI S 3984 , at *4 - 5 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo May 15, 2012, pet. ref’d ) (not designated for publication) (stating the same) . Next, we refer to our opinion in Badilla v. State , No. 07 - 07 - 00081 - CR, 2009 Tex. App. L EXIS 1465 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo February 20, 2009 , no pet.) (not designated for publication) wherein we said that

“ prosecution for assault on a public servant during the course of the arrest does not depend on the arrest's lawfulness .” Id. at *11. To that , we add the opinion of our Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Mayorga , 901 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App
. 1995), wherein the court recognized that “ it is no defense to prosecution [for resisting arrest] that the arrest or search was unlawful .” Id. at 945. Combined, the foreg oing precedent requires us to conclude that even if the stop of appellant w as illegal, appellant remained subject to prosecution for assaulting the deputy. Moreover, the evidence of that assault was not subject to suppression because it did not exist at t he time of the initial stop. Cooper v. State
. 956 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Tex. App. — Tyler 1997, pet. ref’d); accord Bryant v. State , 253 S.W.3d at 812 (applying the same rationale whe n the glass pipe was destroyed after the detention began). We overrule appell ant’s sole issue and affirm the judgment. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 7, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00686

- CV

IN RE Mark A. CANTU

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 1, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on October 7 th , 2014.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 7 th day of October, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012CVQ0001154

- D3, styled Guerra & Moore, Ltd., LLP v. Mark Cantu

d/b/a Law Office of Mark Cantu , pending in the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable

Beckie Palomo presiding.
Exhibit 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
of Alcentra Capital Corporation
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Exchange Act,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Suhail A. Shaikh, Chief
Executive Officer of Alcentra Capital Corporation, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alcentra Capital Corporation; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 30, 2019



| | /s/ Suhail A. Shaikh   
| | -----------------------
| | Suhail A. Shaikh       
| | Chief Executive Officer
ex10-3.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


 



	


	
2207 Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 250


San Mateo, CA 94404


Main: (650) 588-6404


Fax: (650) 588-2787


URL:  www.talontx.com

















December 27, 2011


 













  Craig W. Carlson





  _______________





  _______________









 



	
  

	
Re:

	
Increased Severance Benefits







 


Dear Craig:


 


Reference is made to the letter agreement dated February 5, 2010 between you and Talon Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Hana Biosciences, Inc.) (the “Company”), as amended on February 17, 2010 (together, the “Agreement”).


 


On behalf of the Company, this will confirm our recent discussions concerning an increase in the severance benefits currently afforded to you under the Agreement.  Specifically, if, following the Company’s receipt of FDA Approval (as defined below), (i) the Company terminates your employment other than for Cause (as defined in the Agreement), or (ii) you terminate your employment for Good Reason (as defined in the Agreement), then for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of such termination, the Company shall continue to (A) pay your then current annualized base salary and (B) provide you with health insurance (on the identical terms as then provided to all other employees of the Company).


 


If, prior to the Company’s receipt of FDA Approval, (1) the Company terminates your employment other than for Cause, or (2) you terminate your employment for Good Reason, then you will remain eligible to receive the severance benefits as currently provided for in the Agreement.


 


As used herein, the term “FDA Approval” means the Company’s receipt of marketing approval in the United States (including “accelerated approval” in accordance with 21 C.F.R. §314.500 et seq.) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on or before December 31, 2012, for a new drug application submitted by the Company as sponsor and relating to the Company’s Marqibo (vincristine sulfate liposomes injection) product candidate.


 


Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by countersigning in the space indicated below and returning a fully-signed copy of this letter to me.


 







 


Very truly yours,


 







/s/ Steven R. Deitcher, M.D.                                                                


Steven R. Deitcher, M.D.


President, CEO, and Board Member







Acknowledged and agreed to


this 27th day of December, 2011:












/s/ Craig W. Carlson                                                                


Craig W. Carlson
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a ManagingDirector of Citibank, N.A. (the "Company"), hereby certify, with respect to the Trust and Servicing Agreement, datedas of May 6, 2013 , (the "Agreement"), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer and special servicer, Citibank, N.A., as certificate Administrator (the "CertificateAdministrator"), and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee, the following:

1.                 A review of the Company's activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting periodending December 31, 2013 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period endingDecember 31, 2013, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout thereporting period.

This statement is given bythe undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigned's individual capacity.

Date: February 28, 2014

Citibank, N.A.

By       */s/Karen Montbach*
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 filed on the
date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.
 By:
    /s/ John R. Troka, Jr.John R. Troka, Jr.Interim Chief Financial Officer
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### LaLene M. Tilson v. Conley S. Tilson, Jr.

September 12, 2002

Case No. (Chancery) 170753

By Judge Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr.

I am writing to modify and clarify my August 30, 2002, ruling in the above referenced matter. That ruling denied Mr. Tilson’s motion to extend the time to file a written statement of facts, testimony, and other incidents of the case under Rule 5A:3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Rule 5A:3 allows this court to extend the filing date “for good cause shown and to attain the ends of justice.”

On August 30, 2002,1 heard argument by Mr. Tilson’s new counsel on why I should grant such leave to Mr. Tilson. At the conclusion of the argument, I denied the motion on the grounds that no good cause was shown and granting the motion would attain no ends of justice. I now modify that ruling as follows.

I find that good cause exists to allow a late filing of a written statement of facts, testimony, and other incidents of the case in that present counsel came into this case shortly after the trial was heard. It was represented that Mr. Tilson’s trial counsel was away for many of the weeks following trial. (No order has been entered substituting new counsel or reflecting the withdrawal of trial counsel.) That constitutes good cause to grant an extension to new counsel to file the written statement. But I deny the motion for two reasons unrelated to new counsel’s efforts. First, given Mr. Tilson’s conduct before, during, and after the trial, no ends of justice would be attained by granting his motion. There was little apparent pre-trial preparation on Mr. Tilson’s behalf. Mr. Tilson’s inadequate responses to requests for admission were the subject *167of a motion *in limine*at trial. Mr. Tilson’s testimony at trial caused this court to question his credibility. He is already the subject of post-trial motions alleging his failure to abide by this court’s orders. Second, like many equitable distribution trials, the evidence was lengthy and somewhat complicated. It is not possible for me to reconstruct from my notes all of the relevant testimony so as to allow the filing of a written statement of facts, testimony, and other incidents of trial that would fully reflect the trial. Mr. Tilson should have engaged the services of a court reporter to provide a transcript on appeal.

For these reasons, I am modifying my August 30, 2002, ruling.

*Order Amending Denial of an Extension of Time to File Written Statement of Facts*

The 30th day of August 2002 came the parties on the defendant’s motion, pursuant to Rules 5A:3 and 5 A: 8, for an extension of time to file a written statement of facts, testimony, and other incidents of the case. On August 30, 2002, the Court denied that motion. By this order, and for the modified reasons stated in the Court’s letter of September 12, 2002, which is attached and incorporated by reference, the defendant’s motion is denied. Pursuant to Rule 1:13, signature of counsel on this order is waived, a copy is sent to all trial and appellate counsel of record, and defendant’s exceptions to the ruling are preserved.
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     The undersigned, a Director of Arbitron Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, doeshereby make, nominate and appoint SEAN R. CREAMER and TIM SMITH, and each of them, to be myattorney-in-fact for six months from the date hereof, with full power and authority to execute forand on behalf of the undersigned the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2006, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; provided that such Form 10-K is first reviewed by theAudit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company and by my attorney-in-fact, and his/hername, when thus signed, shall have the same force and effect as though I had manually signed suchForm 10-K.     I have signed this Power of Attorney as of February 21, 2007.       /s/ Alan W. Aldworth         Alan W. Aldworth         /s/ Shellye L. Archambeau         Shellye L. Archambeau         /s/ Philip Guarascio         Philip Guarascio         /s/ Larry E. Kittelberger         Larry E. Kittelberger         /s/ Luis G. Nogales         Luis G. Nogales         /s/ Lawrence Perlman         Lawrence Perlman         /s/ Richard A. Post         Richard A. Post
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 234 

To authorize the printing of a collection of the rules of the committees 

of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mr. BLUNT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize the printing of a collection of the rules of 

the committees of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That a collection of the rules of the commit2 tees of the Senate, together with related materials, be 

3 printed as a Senate document, and that there be printed 

4 250 additional copies of such document for the use of the 

5 Committee on Rules and Administration. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7625

JACORI ANDRE CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

D. FARMER, Correctional Officer; JOHNNY HALL, Correctional 

Officer; CHRISTOPHER GILBERT, Sergeant,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

NURSE MEADE, LPN; TONY ADAMS, Investigator Sgt.; T. S. RAY, 

Warden; C/O RAMEY, Correctional Officer; PRISON GUARD 

POWERS, Correctional Officer; NURSE A. BOWENS; L. YATES, 

LPN; ROLETTE, Assistant Warden; J. LAMBERT, Sergeant; R. 

MULLINS, Grievance Coordinator,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:12-cv-00008-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Jacori Andre Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Kate Jacobs, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jacori Andre Carter appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny Carter’s motion to appoint counsel, and we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* Carter v. 

Farmer, No. 7:12-cv-00008-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2012). 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

 * We reject Carter’s challenge to the district court’s 

refusal to sanction Defendants for their alleged spoliation of 

evidence.
phyh_ex104.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4






















 


FORM OF CONVERTIBLE


PREFERRED STOCK OF


PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.


 


 


 


 


 







 


 


 









  





1











  






 


[PhyHealth Logo]


 



	  	  	  
	
Certificate Number  

	  	
Shares


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
PAR VALUE $0.001


PREFERRED STOCK  

	  	
CUSIP No. 71943J 10 9







 


 



	
THIS CERTIFIES THAT

	
SPECIMEN







 


Is The Owner on







FULLY PAID AND NON-ACCESSIBLE SHARES OF THE PREFERRED STOCK PAR VALUE OF $0.001 EACH OF PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. TRANSFERABLE ON THE BOOK OF COPRORATION IN PERSON OR BY DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERY ENDORSED.  THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID UNTIL COUNTERSIGNED BY THE TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRAR.







WITNESS THE FACSIMILE SEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND THE FACSIMILE SIGNATURES OF ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.







 



	  	
DATED:

	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
RICHARD E. GOULDING, MD

	
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

	  
	
    Secretary 

	
ISLAND STOCK TRANSFER 

	  
	  	
Transfer Agent        


 

	  





 


 



	
ROBERT L. TRINKA 

	  	
Authorized Signature

	  
	
President 

	  	
100 Second Avenue South, Suite 300N, St. Petersburg, FL 33701


727.289.0010

	  
	  	  	  	  





 







[CORPORATE SEAL]











  





2
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Dated: May 12, 2008
    /s/ Jeffrey A. GreenJeffrey A. GreenChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
                                    September 30,          September 30,
                                 2006        2005        2006        2005
                                ------      ------      ------      ------
                                  (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                             <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
BASIC

Net Income                      $  610      $  751      $1,944      $2,333
/ Weighted Average Shares        3,834       3,804       3,825       3,584
                                ------      ------      ------      ------
Basic Earnings Per Share        $ 0.16      $ 0.20      $ 0.51      $ 0.65
                                ======      ======      ======      ======

DILUTED

Net Income                      $  610      $  751      $1,944      $2,333
/ Weighted Average Shares        3,894       3,903       3,889       3,680
                                ------      ------      ------      ------
Diluted Earnings Per Share      $ 0.16      $ 0.19      $ 0.50      $ 0.63
                                ======      ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>

Notes:

   - Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect the 5%
stock dividend in June of 2006.

                                       34
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,141
<PP&E>                                         955,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,543)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 978,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,190
<BONDS>                                        225,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           354
<OTHER-SE>                                     667,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   978,101
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,614
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,411
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>