alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WILLIAM KIRK ANDERSON

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee.

__________________ _ ____________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4656 1D16

- 4657

Opinion filed March 10, 2017.

An ap peal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. Paul S. Bryan , Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Publi c Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jennifer J. Moore and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We sua sponte consolidate these appeals for disp osition. Appellant seeks

review of orders revoking his probation and sentencing him to prison. He argues2 in each case and the state properly concedes that by failing to conduct an

appropriate plea colloquy before revoking appellant’s probation and senten cing

him, the trial court reversibly erred and violated the requirements of Florida Rule

of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c). See Haug v. State , 151 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA

2014). Accordingly, we REVERSE the orders revoking probation and the

judgments and se ntences entered thereon, and R EMAND for further proceedings.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Henry Floyd GILCHRIST, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA VETERANS ADMINISTRATION; United States District Court, d/b/a William M. Catoe; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, d/b/a Melba Banks; Magistrate Judge William Catoe; Melba Banks, Chief of Chaplains, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-2164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2008.

Decided: June 20, 2008.

Henry Floyd Gilchrist, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Floyd Gilchrist appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Gilchrist v.*
      *225
      *S.C. Veterans Admin.,*No. 3:07-cv-02620-GRA, 2007 WL 3286781 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2007). 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.*
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO

  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series COMM 2013-CCRE10 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”),  and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
## 1998 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-16-1998 

# M e nne n C omp a n

y v . Atl M utl I ns C o
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 97-5266

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1998 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M e nne n C omp a n

y v . Atl M utl I n s C o " (1998). 1998 D e cisio n s . P ape r 159. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998/159

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-5266 The Meenenn Company v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co mpany, et. al.
The following modifications have been made to t he Court's opinion issued on June 26, 1998 in the above-entitl ed appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opi nion:

1. Add the name of "Kevin J. McKenna, Esquire" immediately below that of Mr. Gibbons.

/s/ P. Dou glas Sisk, Clerk

July 16, 1998
a6608783_ex1026.htm


Exhibit 10.26

















[COPYTELE, INC. LETTERHEAD]


 


 


January 12, 2011












Videocon Industries Limited


2nd Floor, Fort House, D.N. Road


Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (INDIA)



	
Attention:

	
Venugopal N. Dhoot, Director


	  	
Naveen Mandhana, Sr. Vice President











 


Dear Sirs:







With respect to the installments of the Technology Transfer Fee scheduled to be paid by February 16, 2009, November 16, 2009 and August 16, 2010, under the Amended and Restated Technology License Agreement between Videocon Industries Limited (“Videocon”) and CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”), dated May 16, 2008 (the “License Agreement”), CopyTele hereby waives the February 16, 2009, November 16, 2009 and August 16, 2010 due dates for such installment payments on the condition (i) that Videocon make an additional payment of such installments of $300,000 no later than March 1, 2011, and (ii) that Videocon and CopyTele agree upon a mutually acceptable payment schedule for the balance of such installments prior to April 15, 2011.  Except as specifically set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties thereto.


 


 




	  	
Sincerely,


	  	  
	  	
COPYTELE, INC.


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Denis A. Krusos

	  
	  	  	
Denis A. Krusos


	  	  	
Chairman and C.E.O.
#### Elaine Pachter, Respondent, v Bernard Hodes Group, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted March 17, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion by Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,275
<SECURITIES>                                    23,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (747)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,872
<PP&E>                                           9,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,886)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,441
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,232)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,417
<SALES>                                         25,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,254
<CGS>                                            9,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,201)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Barron GONZALEZ, also known as Jose Barron-Gonzalez, also known as Fernando Garza, also known as Jose Gonzalez, also known as Juan Jose Barron Gonzales, also known as Jose B. Gonzalez, also known as Fernando Gonzalez, also known as Jose Gonzalez Barron, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-20611

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Barron Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*-— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Munroe, Appellant.

Submitted February 11, 2008;

decided February 14, 2008

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
**EXHIBIT 10.3**
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00416-CR

Venkata Sanivarapu

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 1

of Denton County (CR-2016-05585-A)

March 15, 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-28-1998
<CASH>                                     12,474,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 873,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                 2,147,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           15,979,000
<PP&E>                                     53,778,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              8,521,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            216,604,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      24,688,000
<BONDS>                                   160,827,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      37,866,000
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        9,030
<OTHER-SE>                                         75
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              216,604,000
<SALES>                                   227,372,000 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          227,372,000
<CGS>                                      71,061,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             199,417,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,757,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         12,116,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,523,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  757,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,766,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                1,766,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.34
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Amber A. and Another, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Steven V., II, Respondent, and Kathy A., Appellant. In the Matter of Andrew *V.*and Another, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Steven V., II, Respondent, and Kathy A., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

(Appeal No. 2.)

Submitted February 19, 2008;

decided March 25, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Scott D. Hinman, Respondent, v Croyle Enterprises, Inc., Doing Business as Damian’s Automotive, Appellant.

Submitted February 4, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that Croyle Enterprises, Inc. must appear by attorney *{see*CPLR 321 [a]), and Damian Croyle, who is not an attorney, may not act as its authorized legal representative.
[ 886 NE2d 154, 856 NYS2d 532]

#### Danielle Bernstein, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Roger Bernstein, et al., Appellants, v Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Argued February 14, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rappaport, Glass, Greene & Levine, LLP,*New York City *(James L. Forde*of counsel), for appellants.

*Carol R. Finocchio,*New York City, *Lisa M. Comeau,*and *Law Offices of John P. Humphreys,*for respondents.

*Hawkins, Feretic, Daly & Maroney,*New York City *(Brian J. Daly*of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

*788We held in *Collier v Zambito*(1 NY3d 444, 447 [2004]) that a plaintiff bitten by a dog could not recover because he was unable to show that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s “vicious propensities.” In *Bard v Jahnke*(6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006]), we held that “when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule articulated in Collier.”

Since there is no evidence in this case that the dog’s owner had any knowledge of its vicious propensities, the Appellate Division was correct in affirming the dismissal of the complaint against defendants. Plaintiffs claims against third-party defendant were also properly dismissed, because there is no evidence that third-party defendant was negligent.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20719

Summary Calendar

HUBERT WARREN, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS; DON MAXFIELD; 

JOE GRUBB; GENE KNIZE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-2674

Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hubert Warren, Texas prisoner # 1023303, has filed a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit for failure to pay outstanding monetary sanctions and

its denial of IFP. A litigant may not proceed IFP on appeal unless he

demonstrates financial eligibility and the existence of a nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20719 Document: 00512242733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2013
No. 12-20719

The district court determined that Warren was barred from proceeding

IFP in his civil rights action because he had accumulated three strikes under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Warren does not dispute that he has three strikes but

argues that the § 1915(g) bar should not apply because he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury, citing the fact that he has been exposed to dust

lint and shower odor through his cell vent, which has caused him headaches,

voice changes, and watery eyes. He also alleges that he is under constant stress

resulting from the denial of his constitutional rights, subjecting him to a

potential risk of, among other things, hypertension, heart and immune system

problems, fatigue, depression, and weight gain, all of which could shorten his life

expectancy. 

Warren’s assertions regarding his cell conditions and the possibility of

future medical problems resulting from stress do not show that he faced an

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the relevant time. See Banos v.

O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, he has not shown that

he is entitled to proceed IFP on the ground that he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Moreover, Warren briefs no argument

regarding his unpaid sanctions, does not present proof of payment, and does not

otherwise explain why he should be permitted to proceed without payment of the

outstanding sanctions. He has thus failed to show that he has a nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, the IFP motion is

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See id.; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

2

 Case: 12-20719 Document: 00512242733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL A. HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-1)

Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: April 12, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Harris appeals the district court’s orders

denying his “Motion for Downward Departure and/or Relief from

Sentencing Enhancements Through Reconsideration of a Sentence of

Imprisonment” and motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Harris, No. CR-93-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2003 & Sept. 2, 2003). 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
Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.21 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 

2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN FOR 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC. 
 WHEREAS, The
Cooper Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the Second Amended and Restated 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors of the Cooper Companies, Inc. (the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the Plan, subject to certain
limitations; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of the Company desires to amend the Plan to reduce the amount and adjust the
vesting of the annual grant of restricted stock under Section 6(a) of the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
hereby amended as follows: 
 FIRST: The first sentence of Section 6(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced
with: “Each Annual Restricted Stock Grant presented to a Non-Employee Director shall entitle the recipient to purchase 2,000 shares of Restricted Stock or, in the case of the Chairman of the Board, 2,200 shares of Restricted Stock.”;

 SECOND: The provisions of this amendment shall be effective October 26, 2011; and 

THIRD: Except to the extent herein above set forth, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed by a duly
authorized officer of the Company. 
  

			
	THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Carol R. Kaufman
		 	Carol R. Kaufman
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer