alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DAVID L. PATTON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 588 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DAVID L. PATTON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 589 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 29th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### In the Matter of Supreme Burglar Alarm Corp., Appellant, v Marshall G. Kaplan et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 27, 1978, as (1) declared that the real property assessments levied against petitioner’s property for the tax years 1974-1975, 1975-1976 and 1976-1977, exclusive of the question of the amounts thereof, were legal and (2) ordered that the causes of action for each of the said three years, exclusive of the issue of overvaluation, be dismissed. On July 23,1979 this court affirmed the order insofar as appealed from *(Matter of Supreme Burglar Alarm Corp. v Kaplan,*71 AD2d 658). By order dated December 11, 1979, on petitioner’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, we, *inter alia,*(1) granted reargument, and (2) held the motion for leave to appeal in abeyance. Upon reargument, order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the assessments in question are declared illegal. Motion for leave to appeal denied as academic. New York City has sought to tax all of petitioner’s centrally-monitored alarm systems which it leases to local subscribers, because the Tax Commission alleges that they fall under the legislative definition of real property (see Real Property Tax Law, § 102, subd 12, par [d]). In our view, the imposition of such taxes is precluded by the holding in *Matter of Quotron Systems v Irizarry*(48 NY2d 795), which overruled *People ex rel. Holmes Elec. Protective Co. v Chambers (1*Misc 2d 990, affd 285 App Div 886, affd 1 NY2d 760). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### Harrod *vs.*Hill.

Replevin.

In replevin, where it appears by the officer’s return, that he had restored the property replevied, it is error to render ajudgment *retorna habendo;*nor will a remittitur of *the dam*ages, cure the error, as *that*is no release of the judgment *for a return.*

Whether the practice of the *V.*S. Supreme Court, a3 to the effect of a remittitur in the court below, after error bro’t, should be the rule here — not determined.

TMv. Todd and Mr. Ilemdon for Plaintiff: Messrs. Sanders and Depew for Defendant.]

From the Circuit C<?urt for.Franklin County.

*May*5.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Tms is an action of replevin, in which, though the officer returned that he liad, according to the command of the writ, restored the property which had been replevied, the circuit court rendered judgment *retorno*habendo, as well as for damages and costs.

The judgment *retorno*is erroneous. But, though this is admitted, the counsel for the defendant in error, having produced a supplemental record shewing a *remittitur*of u *the*damages” in the circuit court, and offering to enter a similar *remittitur*in this court, insists that the judgment should be affirmed.

It is not material to determine whether, as was said by the supreme court of the United States in *The Bank*vs. *Ashley, 2*Peters, 327, *a remittitur*in the inferior court after error brought, should be available in this court, so as to produce an affirmance at the costs of the defendant in error. Nor need we intimate, whether this court should, or could rightfully, establish such a rule as that made by the supreme court in the case in 2nd Peters *(supra,)*as to the effect of a *remittitur*in this court : because, in this case, the judgment for a return of the property has not been remitted, and no offer to remit *it*has been made here, or in the circuit court.

Wherefore, for the error in giving judgment (by default,) for a return of the property, the restoration of which by the officer, pursuant to his writ is proved by his official return upon it, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpace shuttle phase B wind tunnel model and test information. Volume 2: Orbiter configurationArchived wind tunnel test data are available for flyback booster or other alternate recoverable configurations as well as reusable orbiters studied during initial development (Phase B) of the Space Shuttle. Considerable wind tunnel data was acquired by the competing contractors and the NASA centers for an extensive variety of configurations with an array of wing and body planforms. All contractor and NASA wind tunnel test data acquiredin the Phase B development have been compiled into a database and are available for applying to current winged flyback or recoverable booster aerodynamic studies. The Space Shuttle Phase B Wind Tunnel Database is structured by vehicle component and configuration type. Basic components include the booster, the orbiter, and the launch vehicle. Booster configuration types include straight and delta wings, canard, cylindrical, retroglide, and twin body. Orbiter configuration types include straight and delta wings, lifting body, drop tanks, and double delta wings. Launch configration types include booster and orbiter components in various stacked and tandom combinations. The digital database consists of 220 files of data containing basic tunnel recorded data.Document ID19880019497Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGlynn, J. L.*(Chrysler Corp. New Orleans, LA, United States)*Poucher, D. E.*(Chrysler Corp. New Orleans, LA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1988Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberDMS-DB-02-VOL-2-PT-1NAS 1.26:178415-VOL-2-PT-1NASA-CR-178415-VOL-2-PT-1Accession Number88N28881Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18276PROJECT: RTOP 506-40-11-08Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880019497.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Candela Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 29, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, F.
Paul Broyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ F. Paul Broyer
----------------------------
F. Paul Broyer
Chief Financial Officer
September 23, 2002



                                       5
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1787 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1787

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an 
  extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program and the 
   increased payments under the Medicare low-volume hospital program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2013

  Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Welch) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an 
  extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program and the 
   increased payments under the Medicare low-volume hospital program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Hospital Access Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE MEDICARE-DEPENDENT HOSPITAL (MDH) PROGRAM.

    (a) Extension of Payment Methodology.--Section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(G)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``October 1, 2013'' and 
        inserting ``October 1, 2014''; and
            (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ``October 1, 2013'' and 
        inserting ``October 1, 2014''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Extension of target amount.--Section 1886(b)(3)(D) of 
        the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(D)) is 
        amended--
                    (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
                ``October 1, 2013'' and inserting ``October 1, 2014''; 
                and
                    (B) in clause (iv), by striking ``through fiscal 
                year 2013'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2014''.
            (2) Permitting hospitals to decline reclassification.--
        Section 13501(e)(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
        1993 (42 U.S.C. ww note) is amended by striking ``through 
        fiscal year 2013'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2014''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE INCREASED PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE LOW-
              VOLUME HOSPITAL PROGRAM.

    Section 1886(d)(12) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(d)(12)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause 
        (i), by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'';
            (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and 2013'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``, 2013, and 2014''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and 2013'' and 
        inserting ``, 2013, and 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>  0000792978
<NAME> CARLYLE INCOME PLUS, LTD.

       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                                    14,972,580
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                228,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          15,201,536
<PP&E>                                    22,320,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            41,943,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        469,137
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                41,294,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              41,943,751
<SALES>                                    6,148,871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,357,920
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              5,201,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             505,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              651,030
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,222,530
<DISCONTINUED>                             2,069,877
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               3,292,407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  22.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  22.32
        

</TABLE>
M. P. No. 79-405.

#### Warwick School Committee *v.*Gerald T. Gibbons, Purchasing Agent for the City of Warwick *et al.*

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Joseph A. Kelly, Albert B. West,*for petitioner. *William T. Murphy,*Assistant City Solicitor, for respondents.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Petitioner’s motion to advance its appeal entitled *Warwick School Committee*v. *Gibbons*et al. ( No. 79-427-A is denied as moot, said appeal having already been assigned to the December, 1979 argument calendar.
Abatement Order filed September 26, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00978-CV

____________

GLORIA GURKA AND ERIC BROCK, Appellants

V.

TRACY GURKA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-42514

ABATEMENT ORDER

This appeal is from a judgment signed October 26, 2011. It appears from the 

record that the judgment is not final.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2 provides as follows:

The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be 

modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order and all 

proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record.
Tex. R. App. P. 27.2. Thus, this court has discretion to permit the parties to take the steps 

necessary to make the order being appealed final.

Accordingly, we order the case abated and remanded to the trial court for a period 

of thirty days to permit the parties to obtain an order severing the paternity claim from the

wrongful death suit. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the order of severance and 

shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before October 26, 2012. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court=s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate 

the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM
#### J. J. SPURR & SONS, Inc., Respondent, v. EMPIRE STATE SURETY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by J. J. Spurr & Sons, Incorporated, against the Eq *1123pire State Surety Company, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 2018.254 Requests for records. Requests for records are to be submitted in accordance with 7 CFR 1.3 and may be made to the appropriate Community Development Manager, Rural Development Manager, State Administrative Management Program Director (formerly, State Administrative Officer), State Director, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Specialist, or Freedom of Information Officer. The last two positions are located in the Rural Development Support Services Division, Washington, DC 20250. The phrase “FOIA REQUEST” should appear on the outside of the envelope in capital letters. The FOIA requests under the Farm Credit Programs (formally FmHA Farmer Programs) should be forwarded to the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Freedom of Information Officer, Room 3624, South Agriculture Building, 14th & Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0506. Requests should be as specific as possible in describing the records being requested. The FOIO, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Specialist, each State Administrative Management Program Director, each State Director, each Rural Development Manager, and each Community Development Manager are delegated authority to act respectively at the national, state, district, or county level on behalf of Rural Development to: ( a ) Deny requests for records determined to be exempt under one or more provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b);
( b ) Make discretionary releases (unless prohibited by other authority) of such records when it is determined that the public interests in disclosure outweigh the public and/or private ones in withholding; and
( c ) Reduce or waive fees to be charged where determined to be appropriate.
Order filed February 27, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 18
- 00091
- CR

____________ EX PARTE OSCAR MINJA RE SANCHEZ , JR.

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1412036
- A



### ORDER This is an appeal from the denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus

on January 11, 2018. A related case was previously filed in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas under case number 01

- 16

- 00293

- CR. It is ORDERED that the appeal docketed under this court ’s appellate ca se number 14

- 18

- 00091

- CR is transferred to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas pursuant to Local Rule 1.5. 14th Tex. App. (Houston) Loc. R. 1.5. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer all papers filed in the case, and certify all Orders made, to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas. PER CURIAM
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.513 [Reserved]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2046 

To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water resources development projects administered by the Secretary of the Army, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2013 

Mr. GIBBS (for himself and Mr. SCHWEIKERT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water 

resources development projects administered by the Secretary of the Army, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Recreational Lands 

5 Self-Defense Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2046 IH

1 (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution 

2 provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and 

3 bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’. 

4 (2) Section 327.13 of title 36, Code of Federal 

5 Regulations, provides that, except in special cir6 cumstances, ‘‘possession of loaded firearms, ammu7 nition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and ar8 rows, crossbows, or other weapons is prohibited’’ at 

9 water resources development projects administered 

10 by the Secretary of the Army. 

11 (3) The regulations described in paragraph (2) 

12 prevent individuals complying with Federal and 

13 State laws from exercising the second amendment 

14 rights of the individuals while at such water re15 sources development projects. 

16 (4) The Federal laws should make it clear that 

17 the second amendment rights of an individual at a 

18 water resources development project should not be 

19 infringed. 

20 (b) PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO

21 BEAR ARMS AT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

22 PROJECTS.—The Secretary of the Army shall not promul23 gate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual 

24 from possessing a firearm including an assembled or func25 tional firearm at a water resources development project 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2046 IH

1 covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal 

2 Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 

3 Act), if— 

4 (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by 

5 law from possessing the firearm; and 

6 (2) the possession of the firearm is in compli7 ance with the law of the State in which the water 

8 resources development project is located. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 

STATE OF FLORIDA

 ex rel. ROBERT V. SMITH,

 Qui Tam Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20-cv-3678-MCR-ZCB

JAY A. ODOM; et al.,

 Defendants.

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge M. Casey Rodgers on November 7, 2022

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE OPPOSITION

Filed by Plaintiff on November 4, 2022 Doc. # 64

 Stipulated Joint Pleading

 Unopposed X Consented

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Patricia G. Romero

Deputy Clerk: Patricia G. Romero

On consideration, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s deadline to file its 

opposition to Defendants’ motions (ECF No. 55, 57 and 58) is extended to 

November 21, 2022.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 65 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 1