alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Crim. No. 1971.

First Appellate District, Division One.

June 7, 1937.]

#### In the Matter of the Application of PETER P. McDONOUGH, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

*288John J. Taaffe for Petitioner.

CASHIN, J.

—A petition for writ of *habeas corpus.*Petitioner avers that he is illegally restrained and deprived of his liberty by an order of the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco, adjudging him to be in contempt and committing him to prison. The order was based on his refusal to answer as a witness certain questions asked by the grand jury of said city and county. His refusal was not based upon the ground that his answers would tend to incriminate or degrade him, but that evidence, tending to show criminal acts by certain police officers, having been obtained through a telephone leading into petitioner’s office (which method he alleges to be unlawful), and the questions having been based on information so obtained, he would, should he answer, be aiding and abetting an unlawful use of such information; further, that none of the questions so asked was pertinent, relevant or material to the investigation being conducted, and that the district attorney and his associates have caused and permitted statements to appear in the press and elsewhere charging the petitioner with being an accomplice in acts involving the police officers mentioned.

The proceedings as conducted, and the requirement that he answer, are claimed to have been violative of certain of his constitutional rights, and that as a consequence the superior court was without jurisdiction to make the order complained of.

If it be a fact that evidence was obtained in an unlawful manner, this is no objection to its use for the purpose of the investigation *(People*v. *Mayen,*188 Cal. 237 [205 Pac. 435, 24 A. L. R. 1383] ; *Herrscher*v. *State Bar,*4 Cal. (2d) 399 [49 Pac. (2d) 832]); and petitioner, by answering the questions, would in no sense be aiding or abetting an unlawful act.  Moreover, as held in *In re Lemon,*15 Cal. App. (2d) 82 [59 Pac. (2d) 213], a grand jury investigation is not a criminal proceeding but one for the purpose of determining whether any criminal proceeding shall be commenced and petitioner has but the status of a witness, and can claim only the privilege protecting a witness from self-incrimination. (See, also, *In re Hoertkorn, 15 Cal.*App. (2d) 93 [59 Pac. (2d) 218].) Nor would the fact that public officers *289have elsewhere accused petitioner of criminal practices excuse him, particularly where he disclaims the privilege mentioned.

The questions were relevant and material to the matter before tne grand jury, as the superior court found; and in view of the facts and the cases cited no ground for petitioner’s discharge from custody has been shown.

The petition is denied.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.720 What are the requirements for sound signals?

The sound signal on each pumping platform complex must be operated whenever the visibility in any horizontal direction from the structure is less than 5 miles. If the platform is under construction, this requirement may be met by the use of a 2-second whistle blast, made every 20 seconds by a vessel moored at the platform.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:22-CV-61553-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT

CRUZ VALDIVIESO FIGUERA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALL VIP CARE INC. AND 

LIZ VELAZQUEZ MCKINNON,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Amended Nunc Pro Tunc Motion For Extension Of 

Time To File Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And Statement Of Material Facts

(“Motion”). Having reviewed the motion, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is 

hereby ORDERED that same is: GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, this ___ day of July, 2023.

___________________________________

WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of record by CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 70-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2023 Page 1 of 1
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Communications Commission [DA 00-971]
 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This notice announces that the 1999 revenue threshold used for classifying carriers for various accounting and reporting purposes is increased to $114 million. Section 402(c) of the 1996 Act mandates that the Commission adjusts the revenue threshold annually to reflect the effect of inflation.
 DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before September 7, 2000.
 ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445-12th Street, SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie Weber, Accounting Systems Branch, Accounting Safeguards Division, Common Carrier Bureau at (202) 418-0812.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This gives notice that the revenue threshold used for classifying carriers for various accounting and reporting purposes is increased to $114 million. Section 402(c) of the 1996 Act mandates that we “adjust the revenue requirements” of Sections 32.11, 43.21, 43.43 and 64.903 of our rules “to account for inflation as of the release date of the Commission's Report and Order in CC Docket No. 91-141, and annually thereafter.” Prior to passage of the 1996 Act, our rules established a $100 million threshold to classify carriers for accounting purposes in Section 32.11, for filing cost allocation manuals in Section 64.903, and for filing certain reports with the Commission in Part 43. In accordance with the 1996 Act, the Commission adjusts the revenue threshold based on the ratio of the Gross Domestic Product Chain-type Price Index (GDPPI) in the revenue year and the GDPPI for 1992, rounded to the nearest $1 million. The 1999 indexed revenue threshold was calculated as follows: (1) 1992 GDPPI
91.62(2) 1999 GDPPI
104.57(3) Inflation Factor (line 2 / line 1)
1.1413(4) Original Revenue Threshold
1
                             $100(5) 1999 Revenue Threshold (line 3 * line 4)
1
                             $1141
                         Million.
 Accordingly, the 1999 indexed revenue threshold is $114 million. Federal Communications Commission. Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 00-14540 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EX-10.12





 Exhibit 10.12 

Amendment Two to Exclusive Option Agreement 

This Amendment Two to Exclusive Option Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “this Agreement”) is entered into in Guangzhou as of June 6th, 2019 by
and among the following parties: 
 (1) EHang Intelligent Equipment (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd with commercial register in Building #3, No. 72 Nanxiang 2nd
Road, Science City, High-tech Industry Development Zone, Guangzhou (“Party A”); 
 (2) Huazhi Hu and Yifang Xiong (“Party B”); and 

(3) Guangzhou EHang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd with commercial register in Room 402, F/4 Wing Building, No. 11 Aoti Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou
(for office use only) (“Party C”) 
 WHEREAS 

The Exclusive Option Agreement (“Option Agreement”) and the Amendment to Exclusive Option Agreement (“Amendment to Option Agreement”,
collectively referred to as “Option Agreement and Amendment” with the Option Agreement) were entered into by and between Party A, Party B and Party C respectively as of January 29th, 2016 and November 30th, 2018. 

The Parties hereby amend the Option Agreement and Amendment through mutual negotiation and consent as follows: 

 

	1.	 The parties agree to amend Section 2.2 (j) of the Option Agreement as follows: 



“(j) Except for the agreements executed during ordinary course of business operations, Party C shall not execute any material agreement
without prior written consent from Party A;” 
  

	2.	 The Parties agree to amend Section 10.1 of the Option Agreement as follows: 



“Notwithstanding other provisions stipulated under this Agreement, Party B and Party B shall not revoke or revise the Optional Purchase
Right of Equity Interest or terminate this Agreement without prior written consent from Party A. Nonetheless, Party A can terminate or revise this Agreement by issuing written notice to the company and its existing shareholders 30 days prior to such
notice becomes effective.” 
  

	3.	 Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, the Option Agreement and Amendment shall remain
valid. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Option Agreement and Amendment, this Agreement shall prevail. 


  

	4.	 This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of
which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


 (Remainder intentionally left blank, signature page
follows) 

  
 - 1 - 













 (Signature page) 

Party A: EHang Intelligent Equipment (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 

Authorized representative: /s/ Huazhi Hu 
 /s/ Seal of EHang
Intelligent Equipment (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: 

Huazhi Hu (Signature): /s/ Huazhi Hu 
 Yifang Xiong (Signature):
/s/ Yifang Xiong 
 Party C: Guangzhou EHang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. 

Authorized representative: Shangjin Guo 
 /s/ Seal of Guangzhou
EHang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.,

a Florida Corporation,,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Case No. 0:22-cv-61761-RS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

I hereby disclose the following pursuant to this Court’s interested persons order:

1. The name of each person, attorney, association of persons, firm, law firm, 

partnership, and corporation that has or may have an interest in the outcome of this action -

including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, publicly-traded companies 

that own 10% or more of a party’s stock, and all other identifiable legal entities related to any 

party in the case:

Fuller, Fuller & Associates, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiff

Rudolph Betancourt, Plaintiff

Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Esq., Ford & Harrison, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant

R.T.G. Furniture Corp., Defendant

2. The name of every other entity whose publicly-traded stock, equity, or debt may 

be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings:

None.

3. The name of every other entity which is likely to be an active participant in the 

proceedings, including the debtor and members of the creditors’ committee (or twenty largest 

unsecured creditors) in bankruptcy cases:

None.

Case 0:22-cv-61761-RS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

4. The name of each victim (individual or corporate) of civil and criminal conduct alleged to 

be wrongful, including every person who may be entitled to restitution:

Rudolph Betancourt

I hereby certify that, except as disclosed above, I am unaware of any actual or potential 

conflict of interest involving the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to this case, and 

will immediately notify the Court in writing on learning of any such conflict.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of October, 2022, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing was electronically filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will automatically 

notify Counsel for Defendant:

Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Esq.

Ford Harrison LLP (Miami) 

One S.E. Third Avenue – Suite 2130

Miami, FL 33131

erodriguez@fordharrison.com

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John P. Fuller

John P. Fuller, Esq.

FL Bar No. 0276847

Fuller, Fuller & Associates, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181

Telephone: (305) 891-5199

Facsimile: (305) 893-9505

jpf@fullerfuller.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61761-RS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 2 of 2
# ToC

Numbers and Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers by Type of Complainant

Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers and Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers by Type of Complainant

Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers and Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers by Type of Complainant

Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers and Percents by Type of Complainant

Numbers by Type of Complainant

Percents by Type of Complainant

A-2 Cases Closed with Numbers and Percents by Type of Complaintant by State (full table)

A-2 Cases Closed with Numbers and Percents by Type of Complaintant by Region (full table)

# A-2 Cases closed amt by State

Table of Contents

# A-2 Cases closed amt by Region

Table of Contents

# All Settings Numbers & Percents

Table of Contents

# All Settings Numbers

Table of Contents

# All Settings Percents

Table of Contents

# NF Numbers & Percents

Table of Contents

# NF Numbers

Table of Contents

# NF Percents

Table of Contents

# BC Numbers & Percents

Table of Contents

# BC Numbers

Table of Contents

# BC Percents

Table of Contents

# Other Setting Numbers, Percents

Table of Contents

# Other Settings Numbers

Table of Contents

# Other Settings Percents

Table of Contents
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David P. Storey, Chief Executive Officer of RELM Wireless Corporation, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RELM Wireless Corporation;

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 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 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.

Date:  November 13, 2007



| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/DAVIDP. STOREY                    
| | David  P. Storey                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 384.10 How does the Corps of Engineers make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental concerns? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Corps of Engineers through its single point of contact, the responsible Corps official either: ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact with a written explanation of the decision in such form as such Corps official in his or her discretion deems appropriate. The Corps official may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunication, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the responsible Corps official informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) The Corps of Engineers will not implement its decision for at least 10 days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), or the next higher level responsible Corps official, has reviewed the case and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least 10 days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a single point of contact is presumed to have received written notification 5 days after the date of mailing of such notification.
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

March 1999 8 NASS, USDA

Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

March 1999 10 NASS, USDA
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

March 1999 11 NASS, USDA

Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

March 1999 13 NASS, USDA

Grapefruit:
#### Proctor *v.*Thompson.

Lumpkin, J.

This case is controlled by the decision in *Proctor*v. *Pointer,*ante. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT
32.2
   STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Worlds.com Inc. (the
"Company") for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher Ryan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:
  * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Christopher
Ryan
 Christopher
Ryan
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 Date:
November 14, 2008
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Ch.19 – Appeal Courts

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Ch.19 – Appeal Courts Ch.19 – Appeal CourtsADR2022-02-17T18:11:54-05:00
			
			Ch.19 – Appeal CourtsIssues in controversy are ripe for ADR even after a board of contract appeal decision, an FAA Administrator’s order, or a decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Most appellate matters in the field of government contracts are filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  That court has a well-developed mediation program that has been in place since 2005.  The program provides experienced volunteer mediators at no or little cost to the parties in appropriate cases.  The court’s website fully describes the program.
A few kinds of cases are not appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Cases involving the Tennessee Valley Authority and admiralty are typically filed in district court.  41 USC 7107(2) and 7102(d), respectively.  Under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, each district court is to have an ADR rule in place.  Appeals from matters before the FAA ODRA can be filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, or the circuit where the contractor or offeror “resides or has its principal place of business.”  49 USC 46110(a).  Several circuit courts have mediation programs, including the DC Circuit.  A description of the DC Circuit’s program is available online. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508