alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 29, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2362

Lower Tribunal No. 13-11810

________________

Gabriel Marckson,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat, Judge.

Gabriel Marckson, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Gabriel Marckson appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his

timely motion for post-conviction relief. Although we agree with the trial court’s

determination that the motion was legally insufficient, we reverse and remand

because, rather than entering a final order denying the motion on its merits, the

trial court should have entered a non-final, non-appealable order dismissing the

motion with leave to amend within sixty days. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2);

Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007).

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a non-final order dismissing

the motion with leave to file an amended motion within sixty days.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CATHOLIC BISHOP OF 

NORTHERN ALASKA, 

Debtor,

______________________________

DEWEY GREEN; MARY READER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

UNAATUQ, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35197

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00010-HRH

District of Alaska,

Fairbanks

ORDER AMENDING

In re: CATHOLIC BISHOP OF 

NORTHERN ALASKA, 

Debtor,

______________________________

LOUIE GREEN, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

UNAATUQ, LLC, 

No. 15-35205

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00012-HRH

FILED

SEP 26 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The memorandum disposition filed on August 17, 2016 is amended on page 

three line six by adding new footnote one, which states:

Claimants’ argument that the bankruptcy court lacked 

jurisdiction over them fails. Claimants filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion in 

the bankruptcy court seeking relief from the prior sale order, arguing 

that they had acquired title to a portion of the Property through adverse 

possession. See Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 

1939 (2015) (stating there is no jurisdictional defect “when the parties 

knowingly and voluntarily consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy 

judge”).

With this amendment, the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. 

No further petitions for rehearing shall be filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0000714256
<NAME>        MB Software Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         776,079
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,963,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                   401,670
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,868,614
<PP&E>                                         500,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                 76,364
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,306,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          831,178
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       68,580
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,306,013
<SALES>                                        5,289,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,289,854
<CGS>                                          3,406,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,031,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             256,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (652,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (652,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (407,438)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
|Color photo of James H. Shelton III, Deputy SecretaryPhotos for print
|---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Shelton is the deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of Education. In this role, he oversees a broad range of management, policy, and program functions.

Previously, he served as head of the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the Department, managing a portfolio that included most of the Department's competitive programs, such as the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), Promise Neighborhoods, and others focused on teacher and leader quality, school choice, and learning technology.

Earlier in his career as program director for education at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Shelton managed portfolios ranging from $2 to $3 billion in non-profit investments targeting increased high school and college graduation rates. Shelton has also been the East Coast lead for NewSchools Venture Fund, and co-founded LearnNow, a school management company that later was acquired by Edison Schools. After four years in Atlanta with McKinsey & Company advising CEOs and other executives on issues related to strategy, business development, and organizational design and effectiveness, he left as a senior manager to join Knowledge Universe, Inc.  There he launched, acquired, and operated education-related businesses.

Shelton holds a bachelor's degree in computer science from Atlanta's Morehouse College as well as master's degrees in business administration and education from Stanford University. Shelton currently resides in his hometown, Washington, D.C., with his wife Sonia and their two sons.

|Last Modified: 05/30/2014
|-------------------------
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with thefiling of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006(the “Report”) by Aspyra, Inc. (“Registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifiesthat to her knowledge:

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Registrant as of and for the periods presented in the Report.

Date: April 16, 2007
| /s/ Anahita Villafane                      |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Anahita Villafane, Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|                                            |        |        |  |

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Aspyra, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Francis Belluardo, Respondent, v Board of Education of the Commack Union Free School District, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 21, 1978, which, *inter alia,*held that the action of the appellant in withholding petitioner’s pay during a period of suspension was "arbitrary, capricious and illegal.” Judgment affirmed, with costs. Since this proceeding seeks the vindication of a private rather than public right, the filing of a verified notice of claim was a condition precedent to its maintenance (Education Law, § 3813, subd 1; *Union Free School Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*35 NY2d 371, 379-380; but see *Ruocco*v *Doyle,*38 AD2d 132 [not observing the distinction where the relief sought was equitable in nature]). The petitioner’s attorney informed the school board by letter that its withholding of petitioner’s salary was illegal. This notice was sent within 90 days of the school board’s action, and informed the board that unless petitioner’s back pay' was forthcoming, this proceeding would be commenced. Although the letter was not verified, the court has the power to permit the claim to be amended by supplying the omitted verification *(McCullough v Board of Educ.,*11 AD2d 740). Since the petition by which this proceeding was commenced was verified, was served within three months of the accrual of the claim, and contained the material allegations on which the claim was based, such permission should have been granted. As to the merits of the claim, it is well settled that a tenured teacher may not be suspended without pay pending final determination of charges filed against him pursuant to section 3020-a of the Education Law *(Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ.,*35 NY2d 534). If the teacher obstructs the proceedings, or obtains frivolous adjournments in bad faith, then he will forfeit his salary for the period of the delay (cf. *Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman,*52 AD2d 608). However, the burden of proving this fact lies with the school board (cf. *Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman, supra).*On the record before us, the school board has failed to establish that petitioner sought to delay the proceedings or that he acted in bad faith. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.
#### 2022.103-4 Approvals.

The agency approving official for contractor overtime is the contracting officer.
1428.311-2 Agency solicitation provisions and contract clauses. The following DOI clauses shall be used as prescribed: ( a ) The CO shall insert the clause at 1452.228-71, Aircraft and General Public Liability Insurance—Department of the Interior, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price contract for operation of aircraft is anticipated and where the Government is using a contractor-furnished pilot.
( b ) The CO shall insert the clause at 1452.228-72, Liability for Loss or Damage—Department of the Interior, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price contract for use of aircraft is anticipated and where the Government does not have a property interest and is using a Government-furnished pilot.
( c ) The CO shall insert the clause at 1452.228-73, Liability for Loss or Damage (Property Interest)—Department of the Interior, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price contract for use of aircraft is anticipated and where the Government has a property interest in the aircraft and is using a Government-furnished pilot (*e.g.,* a lease with purchase option).
#### 252.225-7064 Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Satellite Components.

As prescribed in 225.7004-7(d), use the following clause:

# Restriction On Acquisition of Certain Satellite Components (MAY 2024)

(a) *Definition.* As used in this clause—

*Star tracker* means a navigational tool used in a satellite weighing more than 400 pounds whose principal purpose is to support the national security, defense, or intelligence needs of the U.S. Government.

(b) *Restriction.* In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4864, a star tracker must be manufactured in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom). The Contractor shall deliver under this contract only star trackers manufactured in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom.

(c) *Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in subcontracts for star trackers that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, including subcontracts for commercial products and commercial services.

(End of clause)

[89 FR 46816, May 30, 2024]
Overview | **Guidelines** | Information Correction Requests and Appeals | Contact



## Guidelines

|**You are here:** Guidelines > Information Correction Requests and Appeals
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective October 1, 2002 the Department of Education will allow any affected
  person to request the correction of information the Department disseminates
  that does not comply with applicable OMB and Department of Education information
  quality guidelines. An affected person is an individual or an entity that may
  use, benefit or be harmed by the disseminated information at issue.

Most Department information products include the names of knowledgeable staff
  that can assist users in understanding the information presented, and in determining
  whether there is an error that warrants action using the correction process
  described in this section. Users of the Department's information should consult
  with the contact person listed in the product before filing a formal request
  for correction.

- Information Correction Requests
- Review
- Response
- Appeals

|        
|--------
|Previous

|Last Modified: 10/17/2005
|-------------------------
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 237 

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2017 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent 

Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

Whereas, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs conducted an investigation into Internet sex trafficking; 

Whereas, the Subcommittee has received a request from a 

federal law enforcement agency for access to records of 

the Subcommittee’s investigation; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken 


dlhill on DSKBC4BHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 237 ATS 

from such control or possession but by permission of the 

Senate; 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

2 Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga3 tions of the Committee on Homeland Security and Govern4 mental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to provide 

5 to law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies, and 

6 other entities or individuals duly authorized by federal or 

7 state governments, records of the Subcommittee’s inves8 tigation into Internet sex trafficking. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSKBC4BHB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Santangelo, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed unless appellant’s brief is filed and served on or before May 9, I960. The case will be added to the Term Calendar for argument if respondent’s brief is filed and served on or before May 10, 1960. (Order entered May 4, 1960.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          663250
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                668250
<PP&E>                                           13500
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  788106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2015
<OTHER-SE>                                      775791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    788106
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 43812
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    86138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (42326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3110)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (39216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0


</TABLE>
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0734

WILLIAM SCOTT ROGERS, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, LEWIS & CLARK

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, LEO C. DUTTON in

his capacity as Lewis & Clark County Sheriff, JASON

GRIMMIS, in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County

Undersheriff and former Captain for the Lewis & Clark

County Detention Center, ALAN HUGHES, in his

capacity as Captain for the Lewis & Clark Detention

Center, JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 50, in their

capacity as Employees of the Lewis & Clark County

Detention Center,

Defendants and Appellees.

FILED

JUN 2 4 2020

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

ORDER

Pursuant to the Beebe & Flowers Law Firm's motion to withdraw as counsel for

Appellants, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. The Court accepts the

appearance of Doubek, Pyfer & Storrar, PLLP as counsel for Appellants.

DATED this alday of June, 2020.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

06/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0734
Exhibit 4.1

COMMON STOCK                                                        COMMON STOCK

NUMBER                               [LOGO]                               SHARES
                                    TERABEAM

INCORPORATED UNDER THE            TERABEAM, INC.               CUSIP 88077B 10 8
LAWS OF THE STATE OF                                     See reverse for certain
DELAWARE                                                             definitions

THIS CERTIFIES THAT

is the record holder of

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE,
OF

                                 TERABEAM, INC.

transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate
and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of
Delaware, and to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws of the
Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. 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:
                                 TERABEAM, INC.
/s/ David L. Renauld             CORPORATE SEAL            /s/ Patrick L. Milton
Vice President                        2003                             Treasurer
                                    DELAWARE

                          COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
                         REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER COMPANY
                         BY              TRANSFER AGENT
                                          AND REGISTRAR

                              AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
16.206-2 Application. A fixed-ceiling-price contract with retroactive price redetermination is appropriate for research and development contracts estimated at the simplified acquisition threshold or less when it is established at the outset that a fair and reasonable firm fixed price cannot be negotiated and that the amount involved and short performance period make the use of any other fixed-price contract type impracticable. ( a ) A ceiling price shall be negotiated for the contract at a level that reflects a reasonable sharing of risk by the contractor. The established ceiling price may be adjusted only if required by the operation of contract clauses providing for equitable adjustment or other revision of the contract price under stated circumstances.
( b ) The contract should be awarded only after negotiation of a billing price that is as fair and reasonable as the circumstances permit.
( c ) Since this contract type provides the contractor no cost control incentive except the ceiling price, the contracting officer should make clear to the contractor during discussion before award that the contractor's management effectiveness and ingenuity will be considered in retroactively redetermining the price.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010; 85 FR 40067, July 2, 2020]
#### 249.109-70 Limitation on pricing of the terminated effort.

When there is a termination for convenience (partial or whole) or a change that reduces scope, follow the procedures at PGI 249.109-70 for limitation on pricing of the terminated or reduced effort.

[84 FR 30953, June 28, 2019]
#### 246.202 Types of contract quality requirements.