alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

TYRELL DESHAWN SANDERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3231 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Thomas S. Reese, Senior Judge, and Bruce E. Kyle, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.493 Sabine River. ( a ) The draw of the Union Pacific railroad bridge, mile 19.3 near Echo shall open on signal if at least 14 days notice is given.
( b ) The draw of the S12 Bridge, mile 40.8, at Starks, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
[CGD08-95-017, 61 FR 4887, Feb. 9, 1996, as amended by USCG-2009-0101, 74 FR 41633, Aug. 18, 2009; USCG-2012-1065, 78 FR 13243, Feb. 27, 2013]
#### West-Fair Electric Contractors et al., Respondents, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company et al., Appellants.

Submitted July 17, 1995;

decided September 7, 1995

Motion by defendant Gilbane Building Company to strike the brief and supplemental appendix filed by plaintiff L.J. Coppola, Inc. and for sanctions denied, without prejudice to any application for appropriate relief that the parties may wish to make to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as to its certified question and the record to the Court of Appeals. *[See,*85 NY2d 890.]
#### § 785.38 Travel that is all in the day's work.

Time spent by an employee in travel as part of his principal activity, such as travel from job site to job site during the workday, must be counted as hours worked. Where an employee is required to report at a meeting place to receive instructions or to perform other work there, or to pick up and to carry tools, the travel from the designated place to the work place is part of the day's work, and must be counted as hours worked regardless of contract, custom, or practice. If an employee normally finishes his work on the premises at 5 p.m. and is sent to another job which he finishes at 8 p.m. and is required to return to his employer's premises arriving at 9 p.m., all of the time is working time. However, if the employee goes home instead of returning to his employer's premises, the travel after 8 p.m. is home-to-work travel and is not hours worked. (*Walling* v. *Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co.,* 143 F. 2d 308 (C. A. 10, 1944))
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.577 Weems Creek.

The draw of the S437 bridge, mile 0.7 at West Annapolis, shall open on signal from sunrise to sunset from May 1 through September 30. At all other times, the draw shall open on signal if at least five hours notice is given.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             362
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   362
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       362
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,730)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.003)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VASTERA, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 2000. THIS SCHEDULE IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                           2,834
<SECURITIES>                                     3,288
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                       541
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,726
<PP&E>                                          10,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          102,440
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           150
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,055)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,484
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,972
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.94)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 148.110 How do I prepare my application? ( a ) Any person may confer with the Commandant (CG-5P) concerning requirements contained in this part for the preparation of an application or the requirements of this subchapter.
( b ) The applicant may incorporate, by clear and specific reference in the application: ( 1 ) Standard reference material that the applicant relied on that is readily available to Federal and State agencies;
( 2 ) Current information contained in previous applications or reports that the applicant has submitted to the application staff; or
( 3 ) Current information contained in a tariff, report, or other document previously filed for public record with the Surface Transportation Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, if: ( i ) A certified true and complete copy of the document is attached to each copy of the application as required by § 148.115(a) of this part;
( ii ) The date of filing and the document number are on the cover of the document; and
( iii ) Any verification or certification required for the original filing, other than from auditors or other independent persons, is dated no earlier than 30 days before the date of the application.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39176, July 1, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.681 Old Fort Bayou.

The draw of the bridge, mile 1.6 at Ocean Springs, shall open on signal; except that, from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least eight hour notice is given; on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Year's Day the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hour notice is given; and the draw need not open to vessels from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The draw shall open anytime at the direction of the District Commander.

[USCG-2018-0968, 86 FR 7240, Jan. 27, 2021]
ACL/AoD Developmental Disabilities Councils (SCDD) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2019 Final Allocation (Including Reallotment)

9/4/2019

State/Territory

AIDD 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Councils (SCDD)

Alabama $1,323,539

Alaska $520,325

Arizona $1,483,044

Arkansas $790,304

California $7,687,837

Colorado $997,431

Connecticut $731,772

Delaware $520,325

District of Columbia $520,325

Florida $3,882,710

Georgia $2,149,378

Hawaii $520,325

Idaho $520,325

Illinois $2,690,919

Indiana $1,526,024

Iowa $793,669

Kansas $630,063

Kentucky $1,228,380

Louisiana $1,410,363

Maine $520,325

Maryland $1,122,753

Massachusetts $1,397,632

Michigan $2,601,359

Minnesota $1,054,308

Mississippi $937,257

Missouri $1,398,953

Montana $520,325

Nebraska $520,325

Nevada $569,174

New Hampshire $520,325

New Jersey $1,676,634

New Mexico $521,149

New York $4,193,950

North Carolina $2,066,722

North Dakota $520,325

Ohio $2,918,396

Oklahoma $919,841

Oregon $798,984

Pennsylvania $3,102,721

Rhode Island $520,325

South Carolina $1,124,619

South Dakota $520,325

Tennessee $1,498,192

Texas $5,299,538

Utah $649,659

Vermont $520,325

Virginia $1,581,839

Washington $1,368,057

West Virginia $757,958

Wisconsin $1,341,655

Wyoming $520,325

American Samoa $270,970

Guam $270,970

Northern Mariana Islands $270,970

Puerto Rico $500,776

Virgin Islands $270,970

TOTAL $75,095,989
Argued and submitted April 30,

affirmed October 21,

reconsideration denied November 25,

petition for review denied December 22, 1992 (315 Or 271)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JOHN W. BOUNDY, *Appellant.*

(CM 90-0426; CA A68694)

840 P2d 1307

J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Boundy (A68946),*115 Or App 638, 840 P2d 1307 (1992).
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2


                          CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO
                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                       AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.

         Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         1. The name of the corporation is Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.

         2. A Certificate of Amendment (the "Certificate of Amendment) was filed
with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on November 12, 1999 which
contains an inaccurate record of the corporate action taken therein, and said
Certificate of Amendment requires correction as permitted by subsection (f) of
Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         3. The Certificate of Amendment incorrectly states that stockholders
holding the necessary number of shares of capital stock of the Company duly
adopted and approved said amendment.

         4. The Certificate of Amendment is therefore null and void and of no
effect.

         Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. has caused this Corrected
Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its authorized officer this 30th day of
August, 2001.

                              AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.



                              By:      /s/ William L. Deckelman, Jr.
                                   ---------------------------------
                              Name:    William L. Deckelman, Jr.
                              Office:  Executive Vice President, General Counsel
                                       & Corporate Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Coastal Zone Management: Federal Consistency Appeal by Mobil Oil 
Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc.; Consistency Appeal of 
Objections by the State of North Carolina

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

ACTION:  Notice of decision.

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

    On September 2, 1994, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 
declined to override two objections by the State of North Carolina to 
the proposed drilling discharges (PDD) and overall Plan of Exploration 
(POE) by Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. (Mobil) at a 
site about 38 miles offshore North Carolina. The Secretary made these 
decisions pursuant to section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management 
Act (CZMA). Mobil challenged the Secretary's decisions in U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia claiming they were made in violation 
of the Administrative Procedure Act. On March 11, 1996, the court 
ordered a stay of the litigation and remanded the matter to the 
Secretary for a determination whether the administrative record should 
be reopened to receive two recently produced studies, one on the 
impacts of Mobil's propsoed actions on benthic resources and one on 
their impacts on socio-economic resources. Mobil, et al. v. Brown, et 
al., 920 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996).
    The Secretary's decision was held in abeyance pending settlement 
discussions and the outcome of related litigation.
    On December 8, 1999, the Secretary issued a decision declining to 
reopen the record to admit the two studies at issue in Mobil v. Brown, 
for two reasons. First, both this Department and parties to appeals 
under the CZMA have an interest in the finality of Secretarial 
decisions and the administrative process. Once the administrative 
record is closed, a decision should be made, and new materials should 
not be submitted or considered without a showing of good cause. No good 
cause was shown in this case. Second, the two studies do not address 
all of the information gaps identified by the Secretary's 1994 
decisions. The Secretary's decision has been submitted to the District 
Court in response to the court's order in Mobil v. Brown. Copies of the 
decision may be obtained from:
    Karl Gleaves, Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 
20910, (301) 713-2967.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No. 11.419 Coastal Zone 
Management Program Assistance)
    Dated: May 26, 2000.
James A. Dorskind,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-13971 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M
<PAGE>


                                            Exhibit 32.2


                            Section 906 Certification
                            -------------------------

        The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the
Form 10-Q of the MLM Index Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).

        The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the MLM Index Fund.


August 14, 2003



/s/ James A. Mehling
-------------------------------------------
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Mount Lucas Management Corporation,
the manager of the MLM Index Fund
#### Mount *v.*Wall.

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 20, 1906.

Complaint. Before Judge Reagan. Terrell superior -court. December 9, 1905.

*H. A. Wilkinson,*for plaintiff in error. *W. H. Gurr,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. A bond conditioned for the forthcoming of property-levied on under an execution, which is payable to the plaintiff in execution, is not good as statutory bond; but if the obligors or either of them receive from the levying' officer the property levied on upon the tendering of such bond, the obligor receiving the property would be liable thereon in the event the- condition should not be complied with. The reception of the property would be a sufficient consideration to support the promise to have the property forthcoming at the time and place of sale. See *Wall*v. *Mount,*121 Ga. 831.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the excerpt from the charge complained of, in the light of the evidence, did not contain any error prejudicial to the losing party.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1130

DORIS R. MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM, Defendant - Appellee, and CHARLES WILSON; JAMES WALL, SR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-121-WMN) Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Doris R. Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Peter David Guattery, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Doris R. Murray appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to her former employer, the University of Maryland Medical System, in Murray's pro se action alleging that she was unlawfully retaliated against for having availed herself of the dispute resolution process accorded her by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Murray v. University of Maryland Med. Sys. , No. CA-95-121-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 17, 1997). We deny Murray's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRANDON WADE MORAGNE-EL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 772 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
File Na me: 09a0630n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 09-5132 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT ROXANNE MO RAY, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. N O V A R T IS P H A RM A C E U T IC A LS CORPORATI ON, Def endant- Appellee
. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, CO L E, and

KE TH L ED GE ; Cir c uit

Judg e s. B OY CE F . M AR TI

N, JR., Ci rc uit

Ju dg e . Ro xanne Mo ra y wo rk e d f

or No va rt is Pha rm a c e uti c a ls Cor

po ratio n a s a

sa le s r e pr e se ntativ e . A ft e r N ov art is t e rm inate d h e r e mpl oy me nt, she sued the c ompany

alleg ing r etaliation under Tenne ssee law , neg lige nt or intentional misrepre sent at i o n , and outra g eous conduc t. The district court grante d Novar tis’s moti on for summary judgme nt, finding that Moray did not point to evidenc e sufficient to permit a jury to find in h e r f avo r o n a ny of he r c la ims
. Af te r r e vie wi ngthere c or d a

nd brie fs , w e AF F I RM the dis tr ic t cou rt ’s dis po sit ion

of thec a se and adopt its thorough and we ll-rea soned opinion as our own. See Moray v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. , 2009 WL82471 (M.D. Te nn. J an. 9, 2009).
###### Editorial Note on Part 148

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 148.248 What happens when a document does not contain all necessary information?

Any document that does not satisfy the requirements in §§ 20.303 and 20.304 of this chapter will be returned to the person who submitted it with a statement of the reasons for denial.
AIDD Protection and Advocacy (PAs) Awards for the States/Territories 

FY 2015 Annual Allocation

1/30/2015

State/Territory

AIDD Protection

and Advocacy

(P&As)

Alabama $622,622

Alaska $362,881

Arizona $680,282

Arkansas $383,218

California $3,312,386

Colorado $452,679

Connecticut $371,977

Delaware $362,881

District of Columbia $362,881

Florida $1,911,603

Georgia $1,061,580

Hawaii $362,881

Idaho $362,881

Illinois $1,262,305

Indiana $761,016

Iowa $371,009

Kansas $362,881

Kentucky $578,171

Louisiana $566,211

Maine $362,881

Maryland $472,475

Massachusetts $609,367

Michigan $1,237,009

Minnesota $516,882

Mississippi $424,129

Missouri $692,225

Montana $362,881

Nebraska $362,881

Nevada $362,881

New Hampshire $362,881

New Jersey $747,718

New Mexico $362,881

New York $1,815,506

North Carolina $1,101,546

North Dakota $362,881

Ohio $1,323,626

Oklahoma $414,125

Oregon $414,781

Pennsylvania $1,357,807

Rhode Island $362,881

South Carolina $580,002

South Dakota $362,881

Tennessee $748,529

Texas $2,438,361

Utah $362,881

Vermont $362,881

Virginia $737,204

Washington $630,441

West Virginia $362,881

Wisconsin $637,263

Wyoming $362,881

AmericanSamoa $194,139

Guam $194,139

Northern Mariana Islands $194,139

Puerto Rico $859,831

Virgin Islands $194,139

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $194,139

TOTAL $37,959,320