alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549


                                  FORM 10-QA

                                  ----------

                             Amendment Number One
                 Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of
                       The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                                  ----------

For the quarter ended:                                 Commission file number:
 December 31, 1995                                             0-4090

                                  ----------

                      ANALYSTS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
            (EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)

        MINNESOTA                                      41-0905408
(STATE OF INCORPORATION)                  (I.R.S. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO.)

                             7615 Metro Boulevard
                             Minneapolis, MN 55439
                    (ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)

                        Telephone Number: (612) 835-5900

                                  ----------




                                       1

<PAGE>
                                  SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the 
registrant has duly caused this amendment number one to be signed on its 
behalf by the undersigned there unto duly authorized.

                                      ANALYSTS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                                      ----------------------------------
                                                 (Registrant)


Date  March 21, 1996                  By  /s/ Marti R. Charpentier
      --------------                      ------------------------------
                                          Marti R. Charpentier
                                          Controller and Assistant
                                          Treasurer (Chief Accounting Officer)




                                      2


<PAGE>


                                EXHIBIT INDEX


Exhibit Number                     Exhibit
--------------                     -------

    27                    Financial Data Schedule
No. 11-8920.

#### Valenzuela v. Arizona Department of Corrections Health Services et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31(b)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George A.
Troutman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pinnacle Data Systems, 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 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: March 30, 2007   
|                       
|/s/ George A. Troutman 
|Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1105]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: 

*Whereas*, the Georgia Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 26 (Atlanta, Georgia), submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 26 to include a site at the Canton-Cherokee County Business and Industrial Park located in Canton, Georgia (Site 3), adjacent to the Atlanta Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 59-99; filed 11/23/99);                 

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (64 FR 67844, 12/3/99) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                 

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                 

*Now, Therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                 

The application to expand FTZ 26 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this  21st day of  June 2000. 

Troy H. Cribb, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest: 

Pierre V. Duy, 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-16376 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 0:22-cv-62090-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 0:22-cv-62090-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 15, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00354

- CR

Tiffany Nicole Cantu

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judi cial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR9814

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted in part . We

O rder the brief due September 26, 2016.

______________________________ ___ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of September, 2016

.

_________________________ __________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
13 April 2016

044P16

#### Jeffrey J. Johnson and wife, Donna N. Johnson, and Gary A. Proffitt and wife, Betty Jo Proffitt v. Starboard Association, Inc., A North Carolina nonprofit Corporation, John McGuirt, Charles Adams, Eric O’Brian, William Carter, Helen Bunch, Syd Schenk, Cathy Moss, Bud Ayers, Betty Graham, Darryl Rice, individually and as Members of the Board of Directors of Starboard Association, Inc., and Abbot Enterprises, Inc., A North Carolina corporation

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-457)

Denied
§ 102-33.295 May we exchange/sell an aircraft through reimbursable transfer to another executive agency or conduct a negotiated sale at fixed price to a State Agency for Surplus Property (SASP)? Yes, you may exchange/sell an aircraft through reimbursable transfer to another executive agency or conduct a negotiated sale at fixed price to a State Agency for Surplus Property (SASP) (see § 102-39.55 for more information). Note to § 102-33.295 :
Some agencies may also have special congressional authorization to recover costs.
P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

57) ll-D-29 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:45 PM Sheet 57 of 79 
t.r.H. - WHbH. L"-. 

STATE OF .SOUTH CAROLINA 

202 332 7373 

PfFKTJLOF STATE TREASURER 

ri ..." ,:;•. •.' '" ' '" J 

ORAOV L OATTEROON, JR. 

0. O. OHAWCP iS** * 

COLUMBIA 

29211 

July 28, 1987 

The Honorable Lee Thomas, Director 

Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Lee: 

I have been following your career with satisfaction and appreciation. 

It is nice to know and to follow at least one official in the 

bureaucracy. 

Reference is made to EPA's ruling last week requiring an 

antipollution device on new cars aimed at vapors from gasoline 

refueling. 

It seems to me that the better part of wisdom would be to place such 

devices on the gas pumps. Compliance could be achieved much quicker 

and would be much easier to police. How will you chase after 

135 million passenger cars to make sure the device has not been 

disconnected or removed, if it causes car owners a burden or 

inconvenience? 

It does not make much sense to me to add another gadget to cars which 

are already carrying around $1400 worth of antipollution gear. Car 

manufacturers estimate the additional cost at $89 per car versus $19 

that EPA estimates. 

I respectfully suggest that such a device be placed on the gas pump. 

With kindest regards, I am 

Very truly yours, 

} ;<"'• "l

h 

Grady L. Patterson, Jr. 

State Treasurer 

GLPJr:cp 

J
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-241

IN RE EDWIN A. QUARTEY,

Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 460866 DDN 007-17

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, McLeese, Associate Judge, and 

Farrell, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(Filed – May 18, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the 

practice of law in the state of Maryland for six months by consent; this court’s

March 13, 2017, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause 

why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of 

Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that 

respondent did not file a response to this court’s show cause order or file the 

required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that Edwin A. Quartey is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months. See In re Sibley, 990 

A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical 

discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re 

Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed 

reciprocal matters the “imposition of identical discipline should be close to 

automatic”). For purposes of reinstatement, the suspension will not begin to run 

until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit. 

PER CURIAM
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-6608-7]

Availability of EPA comments prepared June 12, 2000 Through June 16, 2000 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of FEDERAL ACTIVITIES AT (202) 564-7167.

An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).

## Draft EISs

ERP No. D-AFS-L65356-ID Rating NR, Box Canyon Timber Sale, Vegetative Management, Implementation, Palisades Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Bonneville County, ID.

*SUMMARY:*                     EPA Region 10 used a screening tool to conduct a limited review of this action. Based upon this screen, EPA does not foresee having any environmental objections to the proposed project.                

ERP No. D-COE-C39014-NJ Rating EO2, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project, Flood Control and Storm Damage Protection, Port Monmouth, Middletown Township, Monmouth County, NJ.

*SUMMARY:*                     EPA objected to the proposed mitigation plan, and recommended wetlands enhancement at a 3:1 ratio or creation of a Spartina dominated wetland at a 1:1 ratio. EPA requested more information on enhancement, monitoring, and borrow areas.                

##  Final EISs

ERP No. F-SFW-L03009-AK Wolf Lake Area Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Construction, Approval Right-of-Way Grant and COE Section 404 Permit, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, AK.

*SUMMARY:*                     No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.                

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00-16657 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7150

RONALD MCCLARY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NURSE DESANIS , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- ct

- 03230

- D )

Submitted : January 24, 2018 Decided: January 29, 2018

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moy ers, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald McClary appeals the district co urt’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McClary v. DeSanis , No. 5:15

- ct

- 03230

- D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21 , 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# Comments on: Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Fee Schedule
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1210 Prohibition on solicitation of presentations.

No person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation under the provisions of this section.

[64 FR 68949, Dec. 9, 1999]
#### The First National Bank of Medicine Lodge v. The Board of Commissioners of Barber County *et al.*

Public Moneys— *Change of Depository, not Enjoined.*A board of county commissioners cannot be prevented by an action of injunction from changing the depository of the public moneys of a county when in the discretion and judgment of the board it is deemed best that a change should be made. *(National Bank v. Peck,*ante, p. 643.)

*Error from Barber District Court.*

The case is stated in the opinion, filed on May 10, 1890.

*Sluss & Stanley, Mansfield, Eaton & Pollock, E. Sample,*and *Chester I. Long,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. A. Cameron,*county attorney, for defendant; *A. J. Jones,*of counsel.

*649The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Barber county, by the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge, against the county commissioners and county treasurer of Barber county, to obtain an order of injunction.

It was alleged that on the 8th day of November, 1889, the board of county commissioners of Barber county entered into a contract with the plaintiff, by which it was agreed that the public moneys of the county of Barber should be deposited in the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge for a period of three years, and that although the bank was solvent, and had complied with all the conditions of the contract, the board of county commissioners and county treasurer were threatening to remove the county funds from the custody of the plaintiff and deposit the same in another bank, and that the plaintiff would thereby sustain irreparable injury and loss, which could not be compensated by an action of damages against the defendants. The prayer of the petition was that the board should be enjoined from violating the contract, and from receiving bids from other banks, or from making any orders relating to a change of the public money, and also to restrain the county treasurer from removing the funds now in plaintiff’s possession as a bank of deposit, and to prohibit the county treasurer from depositing the county funds in any other bank than with the plaintiff.

Upon a hearing, in which it was shown that the board of county commissioners had ordered that the funds of Barber county should be withdrawn from the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge and placed on deposit with the Citizens’ National Bank of Medicine Lodge, a temporary injunction was denied, and this ruling is assigned as error.

The conclusion which we have reached in *National Bank v. Peck,*just decided, determines the merits of this action against the plaintiff in error. This being so, the questions of practice that have been discussed become immaterial, and the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.