alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Clayton Homer Bruno v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00380-CR

01-13-00381-CR

Trial court case number: 1330602

1330604

Trial court: 179th District Court of Harris County

On October 18, 2013, Nicole DeBorde filed a motion to substitute as attorney of 

record in the above-referenced appeals. Appellant is presently represented by Keisha L. 

Smith. The motion states that appellant wishes to substitute, and certifies that a copy of 

the motion was mailed to all parties and to appellant. No objection to the motion has 

been filed.

The motion is granted. Nicole DeBorde is substituted as appellant’s counsel of 

record in place of Keisha L. Smith.

On October 15, 2013, Keisha L. Smith filed a motion to withdraw as appellant’s 

counsel. The motion is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 29, 2013
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of CFO

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gateway, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Gateway), does hereby certify that:



a) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of Gateway 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Gateway.



Dated: August 15, 2005



By:

/s/    RODERICK M. SHERWOOD
IIIRoderick M. Sherwood III Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Application of Albert H. Johnson, Respondent, v. Henry Moskowitz and Others, Composing the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burt, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
#### Arthur Lehmann, Appellant-Respondent, v. United States Lines Company, Respondent-Appellant.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
### §3557. Expedited action in protests of public-private competitions

For any protest of a public-private competition conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 with respect to the performance of an activity or function of a Federal agency, the Comptroller General shall administer the provisions of this subchapter in the manner best suited for expediting the final resolution of the protest and the final action in the public-private competition.

(Added Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title III, §326(b)(1), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 63; amended Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title X, §1061(c)(2), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4613.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 3557, added Pub. L. 110–161, div. D, title VII, §739(c)(1)(B)(i), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2030, related to an expedited action in protests for public-private competitions, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title X, §1061(c)(1), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4613.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–417 substituted "public-private" for "Public-Private" in section catchline.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,949
<SECURITIES>                                    14,043
<RECEIVABLES>                                      217
<ALLOWANCES>                                        42
<INVENTORY>                                        376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,549
<PP&E>                                           1,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                     811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,639
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,377
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,023)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,010
<SALES>                                            277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   277
<CGS>                                              442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (136)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
### §3335. Timely disbursement of Federal funds

(a) Each head of an executive agency (other than the Tennessee Valley Authority) shall, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, provide for the timely disbursement of Federal funds through cash, checks, electronic funds transfer, or any other means identified by the Secretary.

(b) The Secretary may collect from any executive agency which does not comply with subsection (a) a charge in an amount the Secretary determines to be the cost to the general fund of the Treasury caused by such noncompliance.

(c) The amounts of charges collected from an executive agency under this section shall be deposited in the Treasury and credited as miscellaneous receipts.

(d) Any charge assessed by the Secretary under this section, to the maximum extent practicable—

(1) shall be paid out of appropriations available for executive agency operations; and

(2) shall not be paid from amounts available for funding programs of an executive agency.

(Added Pub. L. 101–453, §4(a), Oct. 24, 1990, 104 Stat. 1058.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Regulations

Pub. L. 101–453, §4(c), Oct. 24, 1990, 104 Stat. 1059, as amended by Pub. L. 102–589, §2(1), Nov. 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 5133, provided that: "The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe regulations under section 3335 of title 31, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), to ensure the full implementation of that section."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-81367-WPD

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TIN ROOF DELRAY BEACH, LLC.,

 Defendant.

____________________________________________/

ORDER ON NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Notice of Settlement [DE 14] (“Notice”), 

filed on November 6, 2020. The Court has reviewed the Notice and is otherwise fully advised in 

the premises. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Parties shall file appropriate 

dismissal papers on or before November 30, 2020. If the Parties wish for the Court to retain 

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement the Parties must condition their 

stipulation of dismissal on this Court retaining jurisdiction for such purposes. 1 Any pending 

motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 9th day of November, 2020.

1 If the parties expect the Court to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, the stipulation of dismissal must 

include language conditioning the stipulation on the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F. 3d 1272, 1280 (11th Cir. 2012).

Case 9:20-cv-81367-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2020 Page 1 of 2
Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81367-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2020 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-04-012 March 16, 2004

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC SUSPENDS LICENSE OF A MISSOURI INDUSTRIAL TESTING COMPANY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has ordered the suspension of the NRC license of

KTL Roudebush Testing, located in Kansas City, Missouri, for deliberately violating safety

requirements and providing inaccurate information to the agency.

KTL Roudebush Testing holds an NRC license to possess and use radioactive material for

radiography, which uses sealed radiation sources to make x-ray-like images of heavy metal objects like

pumps, valves, and pipes.

An NRC inspection and followup investigation by the agency’s Office of Investigations found

numerous violations of NRC safety requirements. The Order, issued March 11, required the company

to stop immediately all work involving NRC-licensed radioactive materials and to place the materials

in secure storage. An NRC inspector on March 12 confirmed through direct observation that the

materials were placed in storage, as required.

The Order resulted from NRC’s concerns about the company’s willingness to comply with

NRC’s requirements and to conduct its activities in a manner that protects the health and safety of

workers and the public. In addition to suspending licensed activities, the Order also directs the

company to explain why its license should not be revoked and, if the license continues, how the

company would ensure compliance with NRC requirements in the future.

The NRC Office of Investigations completed its report in February and -- with NRC

inspections last year -- identified nine deliberate violations of NRC requirements:

 Conducting radiography without a second qualified individual being present as

required;

 Permitting individuals to act as radiographer’s assistants without completing required

training;

 Permitting a person to act as a radiographer’s assistant without wearing required

radiation measuring devices;

 Failing to properly inspect and maintain radiography equipment;

 Providing inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC on the required quarterly

inspections of radiography equipment;

 Providing other inaccurate and incomplete information and failing to comply with an

NRC subpoena;
 And three transportation-related violations - failing to properly secure radiography

equipment during shipment, failing to properly cover the equipment fittings to protect

them during shipment, and transporting radiography equipment without required safety

documentation.

The company must submit an answer to the NRC Order by March 31 and may request a

hearing. After reviewing the response, the NRC will determine if further action is necessary to ensure

compliance with regulatory requirements.

The letter notifying KTL Roudebush Testing of the Order and the Order will be available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/materials/ and

may also be obtained from the NRC Office of Public Affairs.

# # #
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 30, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10088

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00104-CR-ORL-22KRS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MERCUTIO STOKES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(July 30, 2008)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Travis Williams, appointed counsel for Mercutio Stokes, has filed a motion
2

to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and

Stokes’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
for the year ending January 1, 2000, and such is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001047368
<NAME>                        Glenoit Corporation and Subsidiaries
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         2,015
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,470)
<INVENTORY>                                    50,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               87,446
<PP&E>                                         96,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (28,494)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,915
<BONDS>                                        237,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (59,134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,945
<SALES>                                        294,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               294,725
<CGS>                                          212,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  76,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               25,823
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             25,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,031)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,288)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,288)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (13.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (13.29)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                               SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
                             SOMANETICS CORPORATION
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, SOMANETICS CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation (the
"Company"), has previously adopted the Somanetics Corporation 1997 Stock Option
Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors has retained right to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors now desires to amend the
Plan.

         NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and by resolution of the
Company's Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.    The first paragraph of Paragraph 5 is amended to read as follows:

                  "5. Maximum Number of Shares Subject to Plan: The maximum
number of shares with respect to which stock options may be granted under the
Plan shall be an aggregate of 2,560,000 Common Shares, which may consist in
whole or in part of the authorized and unissued or reacquired Common Shares.
Unless the plan shall have been terminated, shares covered by the unexercised
portion of canceled, expired or otherwise terminated options under the Plan
shall again be available for option and sale."

Dated:  January 23, 2003
#### In the Matter of Frank A. Walker (Also Known as Frank Alexander Walker), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

December 11, 1951.

*178
      *Frank H. Gordon (George G. Hunter, Jr.,*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Carson De Witt Baker*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent has been charged with receiving from clients various sums of money to be expended for specific purposes; the moneys were not disbursed for such purposes and. were not returned to the clients although demand was made therefor. Respondent also received a cash retainer to prosecute an action for divorce, he performed no services and failed to return $100 of the fee received. Altogether there is involved a total of $287. Respondent failed to appear before the Official Referee and no testimony was presented on his behalf. His absence was explained by counsel who stated that respondent was physically and mentally unfit to offer testimony because of chronic alcoholism. In the absence of testimony by or in behalf of respondent, the Official Referee found the charges had been sustained.

In the circumstances, respondent should be suspended until the further order of this, court, with leave to respondent at the end of a period of two years, to apply for reinstatement upon a satisfactory showing that he has complied with the suspension order of this court to be entered herein and that the suspension should be lifted.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended until the further order of this court, with leave to respondent at the end of a period of two years, to apply for reinstatement upon a satisfactory showing that he has complied with the suspension order of this court entered herein and that the suspension should be lifted.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-03-0075 - Equal Employment Opportunity Briefing

Accession Number: ML030660424

Date Released: Thursday, November 7, 2002

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML023110228 - SRM-M021031B - Briefing on EEO Program (SECY-02-0182), 2:30 PM, Thursday, October 31, 2002, Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, MD. (Open to Public Attendance). (2 page(s), 11/7/2002)
    - ML031130089 - SECY-03-0075-Attachment 3-Equal Employment Opportunity Workforce Profile Data (34 page(s), 5/14/2003)
    - ML031270175 - SECY-03-0075 - Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Briefing (27 page(s), 5/14/2003)
    - ML023530581 - 01/03/2003 - Staff Requirements Memorandum - Briefing on EEO Program (SECY-02-0182). (3 page(s), 1/3/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
EXHIBIT
32.1

Certification
of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Dean M.
Leavitt,  Chief Executive Officer of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.,  hereby certify,  to my
knowledge,  that the quarterly report  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31,
2004 of U.S.  Wireless  Data,  Inc.  (the Form  10-QSB)  fully  complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly  presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.

|Dated:    January 26, 2005
|--------------------------
|                          

---
**Appendix B**

**– Emissions Inventory** 

The file size of this document is greater than 50MB. Because of its unusually large size, this document is not available for download from www.regulations.gov . Copies of this do cument are available for public inspection at the EPA Region III address listed in the Federal Register Proposed Rules document. For further information, EPA Region III’s point of contact (POC) is listed in this docket.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-04-043 July 16, 2004

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION INTO CAUSES OF REACTOR SHUTDOWN AND

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS AT CLINTON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection into the circumstances

surrounding an automatic reactor shutdown and unexpected response of some plant equipment to the

shutdown at the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant. The plant, located in Clinton, Ill., is operated by Exelon

Nuclear Generation Company.

On July 13, an automatic reactor shutdown occurred as a result of a trip of the main power

transformer. The transformer trip was caused by a lightening strike which led to a disturbance on the

electric grid. The main transformer connects the power from the plant generator to the electric grid. 

All plant safety systems responded normally during the shutdown, although several components

did not perform as expected.

A further problem occurred on July 14, when the level of water cooling the reactor core

unexpectedly dropped about two feet. After the drop, the level of reactor coolant remained at

approximately 14 feet above the top of the reactor and was sufficient to cool the reactor core

effectively and not pose a risk to public health and safety. It was then promptly restored to its normal

level.

The NRC dispatched a special inspection to the plant to better understand the cause of the

reactor shutdown and the resulting equipment malfunctions and to ensure that problems associated

with the incident are addressed by the plant.

"While safety was never in question in these incidents, we want to learn as much as possible to

ensure that the issues are fully understood. If there are lessons to be learned from this examination we

want to share them across the spectrum of reactor operators," said James Caldwell, regional

administrator of NRC Region III office in Lisle, Ill.

The NRC inspection team includes two inspectors from the Region III office in Lisle, Ill., and

the resident inspector assigned to the Clinton plant.

The report of the inspection will be publically available when it is issued, about 30 days after

the close of the special inspection. The report will be posted in the NRC’s electronic reading room at:
-2-

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html (To locate the report, once it is issued, enter the

docket number for the Clinton plant (05000461) in the search phrase box.)

###
#### In the Matter of the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of Margaret Laura Zborowski, Deceased. William Sohmer, Comptroller of the State of New York, Appellant; Henry Louis Morris and Another, as Executors, etc., Respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Fowler, Surrogate. (Reported in 84 Misc. Rep. 342.) Present—Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 175.3 Domestic interested party. “Domestic interested party”, when used in this part, means: ( a ) A manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a like product,
( b ) A certified union or recognized union or group of workers which is representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United States of a like product, or
( c ) A trade or business association a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a like product in the United States.
[T.D. 80-271, 45 FR 75642, Nov. 17, 1980]
arleston



# ( \