alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hillsborough

No. 79-286

#### Oscar Lane, d/b/a Nashua Home Improvement Services v. Fred Ackley *& a.*

February 14, 1980

*Linda S. Dalianis,*of Nashua, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

*Nedved & Senn,*of Nashua *(Howard J. Nedved*orally), for the defendant.

BOIS, J.

These are actions in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a balance claimed due for services performed and materials furnished in the construction of a home. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging noncompliance with the terms of the contract. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant’s motions to dismiss and for a directed verdict were denied, and exceptions thereto were reserved and transferred by the Trial Court (Loughlin, J.). We overrule the defendant’s exceptions and affirm the verdict.

The defendant’s only challenge is directed at the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss filed at the close of the plaintiff’s case and renewed after the jury’s verdict. He argues that the plaintiff never gave a clear and detailed explanation of the amount paid out and some of the expenses claimed were not only approximations but were unsupported by check, vouchers or any other records.

The transcript reveals that expenditures of approximately $15,000 were substantiated by check stubs introduced into evidence as exhibits. The plaintiff, without objection, testified as to payroll and other expenses in excess of $20,000 which were recorded in and paid out of a separate account, the records of which he no longer held.

*128In denying the motion to dismiss, the court found: “I suppose it goes to the weight of the evidence ... in that he doesn’t have documentary proof,... I will let the jury decide it.” The inquiry into the weight of the evidence is a finding of fact and not a ruling of law. The only question for this court is whether there was any evidence to reasonably support it. *Wisutskie v. Malouin,*88 N.H. 242, 244, 186 A. 769, 770 (1936). As we stated in *Kierstead v. Betley Chevrolet-Buick, Inc.,*118 N.H. 493, 495-96, 389 A.2d 429, 431 (1978):

> Weighing of substantive evidence is the very essence of the jury’s function. Consequently the trial judge has been granted little discretion to withdraw questions of substantive fact from a jury’s consideration or to overturn their verdict. Motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are similar except as to their timing at trial. Such motions may be granted only when the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom construed most favorable to the party opposing the motion would not enable a jury to find for that party. (Citations omitted.)

*See London v. Perreault,*118 N.H. 392, 394, 387 A.2d 342, 344 (1978); *Amabello v. Colonial Motors,*117 N.H. 556, 561, 374 A.2d 1182, 1185 (1977).

We hold that there was evidence to support the jury’s verdict and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to grant the defendant’s motions. *Kierstead v. Betley Chevrolet-Buick, Inc.,*118 N.H. 493, 496, 389 A.2d 429, 431 (1978); *Eichel v. Payeur,*107 N.H. 194, 196-97, 219 A.2d 287, 288-89 1966).

*Affirmed.*

All concurred.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC.
                                        NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

                                                EXHIBIT 11

                                                   THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED         TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED
                                               ----------------------------  -----------------------------
                                               November 30,    December 1,    November 30,    December 1,
                                                   2002           2001            2002           2001
                                               -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------
<S>                                            <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>

Net income (loss) for computing income (loss)
  per common share                             $      20,066  $   (136,400)  $      (9,765)  $   (179,449)
                                               =============  =============  ==============  =============


Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding during each period                     817,657       826,559         819,384        826,562
                                               =============  =============  ==============  =============


Net income (loss) per common share             $       0.025  $     (0.165)  $      (0.012)  $     (0.217)
                                               =============  =============  ==============  =============
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ERIC & CO TRADING GROUP LLC, CASE NO.: 23-CV-20045-RKA

Judgment Creditor,

v. 

FLOYD MAYWEATHER, JR.,

Judgment Debtor.

and 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and 

ENHANCE HEALTH LLC, 

Garnishees.

___________________________________/

WRIT OF GARNISHMENT

THE STATE OF FLORIDA:

To Each Sheriff of the State:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to summon the garnishee, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, 

N.A., c/o CT Corporation System, Registered Agent, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, 

Florida 33324, to serve an answer to this writ on Judgment Creditor’s attorney, whose address is 

Zachary P. Hyman, Esq., Millennial Law, 501 E. Las Olas Blvd, Suite 200/314, Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida 33301 within 20 days after service on the garnishee, exclusive of the day of service, and 

to file the original with the clerk of this court either before service on the attorney or immediately 

thereafter, stating whether the garnishee is indebted to Judgment Debtor, ERIC & CO TRADING 

GROUP LLC, at the time of the answer or was indebted at the time of service of the writ, or at any 

time between such times, and in what sum and what tangible and intangible personal property of 

the Judgment Debtor the Garnishee is in possession or control of at the time of the answer or had 

Case 1:23-cv-20045-RKA Document 17-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 1 of 2
at the time of service of this writ, or at any time between such times, and whether the garnishee 

knows of any other person indebted to the defendant or who may be in possession or control of 

any of the property of the Judgment Debtor. The amount set in plaintiff’s motion is the sum of 

$1,168,650.00, plus prejudgment interest of $111,551.32 and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ 

fees and costs in the amount of $8,576 remains due and unpaid on the Judgment.

DATED: 

ANGELA E. NOBLE

CLERK OF COURT

By: _________________________________

 As Deputy Clerk

Copies furnished to: 

Zachary P Hyman, Esq.

zach@millenniallaw.com

jessica@millenniallaw.com

assistant@millenniallaw.com

millenniallawforms@gmail.com

Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

288 South Coconut Lane

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Case 1:23-cv-20045-RKA Document 17-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-34.15 Who must comply with these provisions?

All executive agencies must comply with the provisions of this part. The legislative and judicial branches are encouraged to follow these provisions.
| Reference:       | (a) | Purchase Agreement No. 3219 (the Purchase Agreement) between The Boeing Company (Boeing) and American Airlines, Inc. (Customer) relating to Model 787-923 aircraft (the Aircraft) |
|------------------------------------------------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|             | (b) | Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-TRW-0671 entitled Performance Guarantees (the Performance Guarantees) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
No. 11-7669.

#### El-Mumit *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                         31,305
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    885,894
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,051,095
<PP&E>                                         706,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                 167,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,111,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          536,200
<BONDS>                                        244,373
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       296
<OTHER-SE>                                     584,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,111,926
<SALES>                                        872,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               882,578
<CGS>                                          630,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  630,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               265,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             21,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (35,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   13,551
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22,111)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,111)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.75)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Jacob Inbar,Chief Executive Officer of AML Communications Inc., (the “Company”), certifythat:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: June 29, 2005 |
|--------------------------|
| /s/ JACOB INBAR          |   |   | By: | Jacob Inbar |
| Chief Executive Office   |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

                      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer ofAlcan Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, thatthe Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Date: 9 August2005                                                           

 

                                                                                        /s/ TravisEngen                               

                                                                                         TravisEngen

President andChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-105869, 333-96979, 333-65570, 333-51984, 333-40590, 333-81883, 333-71809,
333-69395, 333-44217 and 333-35569 of Impax Laboratories, Inc. on Form S-3 and
in Registration Statement Nos. 333-107869, 333-89098, 333-57304, 333-37968,
333-79265, 333-58345 and 333-41595 of Impax Laboratories, Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated March 10, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Impax Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 12, 2004
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Victor M. Perez, certify that:          1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A ofAllis-Chalmers Energy Inc.; and          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.        Date: December 29, 2006 *By /s/ Victor M. Perez*   *Victor M. Perez*   *Chief Financial Officer*
#### § 105-64.304 How are administrative appeal decisions made?

The GSA Privacy Act Officer will conduct a review of your appeal by consulting with legal counsel and appropriate officials. The Privacy Act Officer may grant record access if the appeal is granted. If the decision is to reject the appeal, the Privacy Act Officer will provide all pertinent information about the case to the Deputy Administrator and ask for a final administrative decision. The Deputy Administrator may grant access to a record, in which case the Privacy Act Officer will notify you in writing, and the system manager will make the record available to you. If the Deputy Administrator denies the appeal, he or she will notify you in writing of the reason for rejection and of your right to a judicial review. The administrative appeal review will take no longer than 30 workdays after the Privacy Act Officer receives the appeal. The Deputy Administrator may extend the time limit by notifying you in writing of the extension and the reason for it before the 30 days are up.
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Shawn Brient Pritchett Matthew Lay Rochelle Ngyuen Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A
1

Kelly, ThomasP

From: Kelly, ThomasP

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 2:02 PM

To: Kelly, ThomasP

Subject: RECLAIM Facilities in the Coachella Valley

In a brief phone conversation on September 1, 2016, Kevin Orellana, with SCAQMD, confirmed that CPV Sentinel and 

Wildflower Energy are the only two RECLAIM facilities in the Coachella Valley. 

Tom Kelly 

Air Planning Office (AIR-2) 

U.S. EPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 972-3856
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-81758-RAR

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE

THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK

ON THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________________/

ORDER TO PERFECT SERVICE AND FILE STATUS REPORT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. On November 11, 2022, Plaintiff

Donald J. Trump filed his Complaint, [ECF No. 1]. To date, there is no indication in the court file 

that Defendants have been served with the summons and Complaint. On November 14, 2022, 

summonses were issued for nearly all Defendants. [ECF No. 3]. On that same day, however, the 

Clerk of Court filed a notice informing Plaintiff that a summons could not be issued as to one 

Defendant because “[t]he party(ies) on the summons(es) does not match the initiating documents 

re: Adam D. Kinzinger.” [ECF No. 4]. The Clerk further instructed, “[f]iler may file a Notice of 

Filing Proposed Summons(es) with the corrected summons attached.” Id.

Since then, Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Filing Proposed Summons with the corrected 

summons attached or otherwise perfected service. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires 

service of the summons and complaint to be perfected upon a defendant within ninety days after 

the filing of the complaint. It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Case 9:22-cv-81758-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. Plaintiff shall file a status report on or before December 22, 2022, informing the Court 

as to whether Plaintiff intends to perfect service and prosecute this case.

2. Additionally, on or before February 11, 2023, Plaintiff shall perfect service upon

Defendants or show good cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to perfect 

service of process. Failure to file proof of service or show good cause on or by February 11, 2023,

will result in a dismissal of this action without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of December, 2022.

____________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:22-cv-81758-RAR Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-75.560 Who notifies eligible public agencies that real property to be used for self-help housing or housing assistance purposes is available?

The disposal agency must notify eligible public agencies that surplus property is available. The notice must require that any plans for self-help housing or housing assistance use resulting from the development of the comprehensive and coordinated plan of use and procurement for the property must be coordinated with HUD. Eligible public agencies may obtain an application form and instructions for preparing and submitting the application from HUD.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23983-BLOOM/ Otazo-Reyes

Gregg Podalsky, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER OF TRANSFER

GOOD CAUSE appearing that a transfer of this case is appropriate pursuant to Internal 

Operating Procedure 2.15.00 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

because of related Case No. 22-cv-23753-KMM, and subject to the consent of the Honorable K. 

Michael Moore, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above numbered case is transferred to the 

calendar of Judge Moore for all further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, on December 8, 2022.

________ ________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
After reviewing the file in the above numbered case, the undersigned accepts the transfer 

of this case. Therefore, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all pleadings filed after this date shall bear the 

following case number, 22-cv-23983-KMM, indicating the Judge to whom all pleadings should 

be routed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, on December 8, 2022. 

_________________________________

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 105-70.044 Right to administrative offset.

The amount of any penalty or assessment which has become final, or for which a judgment has been entered under § 105-70.042 or § 105-70.043, or any amount agreed upon in a compromise or settlement under § 105-70.046, may be collected by administrative offset under 30 U.S.C. 3716, except that an administrative offset may not be made under this subsection against a refund of an overpayment of Federal taxes, then or later owing by the United States to the defendant.
# Comments on: 2022-1716: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.
§ 105-60.302 Responding to FOIA requests. ( a ) GSA shall provide an estimated date by which the agency expects to provide a response to the requester. If a request involves a voluminous amount of material or searches in multiple locations, GSA may provide an interim response, meaning the agency releases the records on a rolling basis as the records are located and verified.
( b ) In determining which records are responsive to a request, the agency shall include only the records in its possession as of the date the agency receives the perfected FOIA request. If any other date is used, GSA shall inform the requester accordingly. A record that is excluded from the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c) is not considered responsive to a request.
( c ) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552, GSA is not required to perform the following in response to a FOIA request: ( 1 ) Answer questions or interrogatories posed as FOIA requests;
( 2 ) Issue guidance/or opinions;
( 3 ) Analyze and/or interpret documents for a requester;
( 4 ) Create records;
( 5 ) Conduct research; or
( 6 ) Initiate investigations.
( d ) The GSA Administrator and GSA Chief FOIA Officer and/or their assigned delegates are authorized to grant or deny any requests for records or portions thereof that are generated, maintained, or controlled by GSA.
§ 109-25.109-2 Equipment pools. ( a ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) The report on the use and effectiveness of equipment pools shall be submitted to the head of the DOE office at the discretion of that official. However, documentation of evaluations of pools shall be maintained and made available for review by appropriate contractor management, DOE offices, and audit teams.
( e ) Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) shall require periodic independent reviews of equipment pool operations.
#### § 101-30.101-7 Federal Catalog System.

*Federal Catalog System* means the single supply catalog system designed to uniformly identify, classify, name, describe, and number the items of personal property used by the Federal Government by providing only one classification, one name, one description, and one item identification number for each item of supply. It provides a standard reference language or terminology to be used by all persons engaged in the process of supply.

[41 FR 11308, Mar. 18, 1976]