alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2648

_____________________________
J ENNIFER M C L ENDON , Appellant,

v.

R ICHARD D ’ A MICO , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Daniel F. Wilensky , Judge

. April 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
Jennifer McLendon and Richard D’Amico divorced in 2015 . At the time, D’Amico was suffering from addiction, and the parties agreed that his visits with their minor child would be supervised. One year later, D’Amico petitioned for unsupervised time

- sharing
, alleging that he was no longer an addict and that shared custody was in the child’s best interest. After hearing two days’ worth of evidence, the trial court sided with D’Amico and modified the judgment. (It ordered, though, that D’Amico submit to contin ued drug testing.) McLendon now appeals, arguing that the amendment was not in the child’s best interest and that the court overlooked evidence of D’Amico’s continued problems.
Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in determining custody arrangements

. See Hoyt v. Chalker , 228 So. 3d 697, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, sets out2 factors for consideration. See Neville v. McKibben , 227 So. 3d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). And here, the court found that those factors supported awarding D’Amico unsupervised time

- sharing. The court based its findings on, among other things, testimony that D’Amico had been sober for three years, remained active in

re c overy , and was a successful high

- school teacher and coach. The court also consider ed expert testimony that D’Amico’s addiction was in remission. Although McLendon disagrees with the court’s findings and points to some contradictory evidence, the findings in the court’s detailed order were supported by competent, substantial evidence. We therefore must affirm. See Neville , 227 So. 3d at 1273 ( “ As competent, substantial evidence exists to support the trial court ’ s award of 50/50 timesharing and school address designation, it must be affirmed on appeal.”).

A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , K ELSEY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Stephanie A. Sussman of Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright & Sussman
, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Stacey De V all of the De V all Firm, P.A.
, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

BallantyneStrong, Inc.

Omaha,Nebraska

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-03849, 333-116739, 333-139177,333-153408, 333-218770, 333-169115, 333-196019 and 333-207921) of Ballantyne Strong, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2018,relating to the consolidated financial statements of Itasca Capital Ltd. (formerly Kobex Capital Corp.), which appears in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A of Ballantyne Strong, Inc.

 

*/s/BDO USA, LLP*

 

GrandRapids, Michigan

April2, 2018
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7589 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 

and Information, to conduct a study of the national 

security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and 

devices that combine a modem and router, 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, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 7589 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Our Unse3 cure Technologies to Ensure Reliability and Security Act’’ 

4 or the ‘‘ROUTERS Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. STUDY OF NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS POSED BY 

6 CERTAIN ROUTERS AND MODEMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 

8 study of the national security risks posed by consumer 

9 routers, modems, and devices that combine a modem and 

10 router that are designed, developed, manufactured, or sup11 plied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the 

12 influence of a covered country. 

13 (b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year 

14 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

15 shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

16 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

17 Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 

18 report on the results of the study conducted under sub19 section (a). 

20 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

21 (1) COVERED COUNTRY.—The term ‘‘covered 

22 country’’ means a country specified in section 

23 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 

24 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

25 the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the AsVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:06 Sep 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7589.RFS H7589

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 7589 RFS

1 sistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 

2 and Information. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsWRLES: Wave Resolving Large-Eddy Simulation Code, Theory and UsageA computational fluid dynamics code has been developed for large-eddy simulations (LES) of turbulent flow. The code uses high-order of accuracy and high-resolution numerical methods to minimize solution error and maximize the resolution of the turbulent structures. Spatial discretization is performed using explicit central differencing. The central differencing schemes in the code include 2nd- to 12th-order standard central difference methods as well as 7-, 9-, 11- and 13-point dispersion relation preserving schemes. Solution filtering and high-order shock capturing are included for stability. Time discretization is performed using multistage Runge-Kutta methods that are up to 4th order accurate. Several options are available to model turbulence including: Baldwin-Lomax and Spalart-Allmaras Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes turbulence models, and Smagorinsky, Dynamic Smagorinsky and Vreman sub-grid scale models for LES. This report presents the theory behind the numerical and physical models used in the code and provides a user's manual to the operation of the code.Document ID20190018057Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDebonis, James R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 10, 2019Publication DateMay 1, 2019Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220192GRC-E-DAA-TN67540Funding Number(s)WBS: 109492.02.03.01.05.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Technical ReviewSingle ExpertKeywordsHigh-OrderAvailable DownloadsNameType20190018057.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
# C_2015213EN.01003302.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-51/14) (1)

1

((System of traditional specialities guaranteed - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Rejection of the request for registration of the name ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (spreadable butter) as a traditional speciality guaranteed - Relationship with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 specifying the conditions for the use of the sales description ‘butter’))

(2015/C 213/56)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Vitáková, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/658/EU of 13 November 2013 rejecting an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) (OJ 2013 L 305, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         12,428
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  953
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,590
<PP&E>                                         9,353
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,427)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,300
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       138
<OTHER-SE>                                     54,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41,648
<SALES>                                        745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,819
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,250)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,664)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 640.130 Medical supervision.

The requirements for medical supervision established in § 630.5 of this chapter supplement the regulations in this part.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20205

Conference Calendar

 

JACKIE REYNOLDS ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

MICHAEL GASTON; MICHAEL 

KUYKENDALL; CHRISTOPHER HERRING; 

JAMES MAYBERRY; LOWELL IVORY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; 

TEXAS BOARD OF CORRECTIONS; WAYNE SCOTT,

DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; FERNANDO 

E. FIGUEROA; DREWRY, Warden; M.B. THALER; 

RICHARD JONES; GREGORY SHIRLEY; S. WHEELER;

P. MORALES; GUILLERMO DELAROSA; TERRY L.

PICKETT; BRYAN B. BUCK; JAMES D. HOSEA,

Captain; FRANKIE L. REESCANO; MOORE, Captain;

DARREL M. LUKER; R.R. PEREZ, Badge No. 104; 

Individually and Officially, PHARR, Captain;

QUINTINA, Captain, JAMES T. MAYES; MARC H.

RODRIGUEZ; MASSINGILL, Lieutenant; RICHARD B. 

JAMES, Sergeant; HERNANDEZ, Sergeant; JACK 

H. DEAN, JR.; VALDEZ. Sergeant; MARIA I. LUNA; 

J. GUZMAN; MORENO; R. ODEMN; ROSAS; DIANA R.

LEONARD; R. HEALY, Dr.; D. BLACKBURN; S. LOVE;

ROBERT H. QUADA, JR.; DAMON REDDEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-3527

--------------------

December 14, 1999
No. 99-20205

- 2 -

 

* 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.

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Gaston, #701377; Michael Kuykendall, #737934;

Christopher Herring, #692233; James Mayberry, #797373; and Lowell

Ivory, #702233, have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this

case without prejudice. This court must examine the basis of its

jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The appellants are attempting

to appeal the order of a magistrate judge. Because the parties

have not consented to entry of final judgment by the magistrate

judge, the order is not appealable to this court. Trufant v.

Autocon, Inc., 729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984). Thus, this

court lacks jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the appeal is

GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate

jurisdiction.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE GRANTED; APPEAL

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
#### § 610.63 Divided manufacturing responsibility to be shown.

If two or more licensed manufacturers participate in the manufacture of a biological product, the name, address, and license number of each must appear on the package label, and on the label of the container if capable of bearing a full label.

[64 FR 56453, Oct. 20, 1999]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of International Absorbents Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 (c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/  GORDON ELLISGordon EllisDate: September 15, 2005
    President and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 312

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 312.85 Phase 4 studies.

Concurrent with marketing approval, FDA may seek agreement from the sponsor to conduct certain postmarketing (phase 4) studies to delineate additional information about the drug's risks, benefits, and optimal use. These studies could include, but would not be limited to, studying different doses or schedules of administration than were used in phase 2 studies, use of the drug in other patient populations or other stages of the disease, or use of the drug over a longer period of time.
Exhibit 10.1
  Exide Technologies      www.Exide.com
     $950,000 $760,000




---



##### 



$1,900,000
    Indicator
    
    Threshold Goal
    
    Target Goal
    
    Maximum GoalAdjusted EBITDA
    
    $***
    
    $***
    
    $***Adjusted EPS
    
    $***
    
    $***
    
    $***




---



##### 



provided however
  
 By: George S. Jones Jr.
  Gordon A. Ulsh




---



##### 



EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES
2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 Exhibit A
 Designation of Beneficiary
 Award Agreement Company    Recipient
 Name of Beneficiary:Address:Social Security No.:
  Date:By:Gordon Ulsh
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                        (WITH PRINCIPAL OFFICE LOCATION)

ARIS Software, Inc.
Incorporated under the laws of Washington
    2229 - 112th Avenue NE
    Bellevue, WA  98004

ARIS Interactive, Inc.
Incorporated under the laws of Washington
    2229 - 112th Avenue NE
    Bellevue, WA  98004

ARIS Information Technology Training, Inc.
Incorporated under the laws of Washington
    2229 - 112th Avenue NE
    Bellevue, WA  98004

ARIS (International), L.L.C.
A limited liability company organized under the laws of Washington
    2229 - 112th Avenue NE
    Bellevue, WA  98004

ARIS UK Limited
(formerly Oxford Computer Group Limited)
Incorporated under the laws of England and Wales
    Wolsey Hall
    66 Banbury Road
    Oxford, England   OX2 6PR

ARIS Computer Services GmbH.
A German company with limited liability (Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung)
Hebelstrase 22d
Heidelberg, Germany 69115
# C_2015073EN.01001201.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-567/14)

(2015/C 073/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Genentech Inc.

Defendant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

‘Must the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding effect being given, where patents are revoked, to a licence agreement which requires the licencee to pay royalties for the sole use of the rights attached to the licensed patent?’

---
Exhibit 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in this  Amendment  No.  1 to
Registration  Statement No. 333-69232 of PSEG Energy Holdings Inc. of our report
dated March 23, 2001,  and to the reference to us unde the heading  "Experts" in
such Prospectus, which is a part of this Registration Statement.

October 1, 2001
Exhibit
32.1








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 Astea International Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zack Bergreen,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/Zack
      BergreenZack
      BergreenChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)March
      31, 2009







83
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7270

JOHN P. ALLISON,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00144-RBS-LRL)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John P. Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Allison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED