alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

PETER HELIE

, TIMOTHY HAVILAND

, NED L IPES

, PHIL LITOWITZ

,

and GREG SMITH , each individually and in a derivative capacity as shareholders of and on behalf of O ld Palm Golf Club, Inc

., a Florida not

- for

- profit corporation, Appellant s ,

v.

OLD PALM HOLDINGS L.P.

, a Delaware Limited Partnership,
CDVII OLD PALM LLC

, a Delaware Limited Partnership, CLARION DEVELOPMENT VENTURES, III L.P.

, a Delaware Limited Partnership, CLARION DEVELOPME NT III, LLC

, a Delaware Limited Partnership, CLARION PARTNERS LLC

, a New York Limited Partnership, TRITON ATLANTIC PARTNERS, LLC

, a Delaware Limited

Partnership, JAMES D. MOTTA

, GARY WALKER

, L ESLIE SNAVELY

, and OLD PALM GOLF CLUB, INC. Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 2317

[ February 8, 2018 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Richard L. Oftedal , Judge; L.T. Case
No. 502017CA003131XXXXMB

.
Gary M. Dunkel and Seth B. Burack of Fox Rothschild LLP, We st Palm Beach, for appellants.

Jaime A. Bianchi, David P. Draigh and Zachary B. Dickens of White & Case LLP, Miami

, for appellees Old Palm Holdings, L.P., CDVIII Old Palm, LLC, Clarion Development Ventures III, L.P., Clarion Development III, LLC, and Clar ion Partners, LLC.

Kathryn L. Ender of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellees Triton Atlantic Partners, LLC, James D. Motta, Gary Walker and Leslie Snavely.

Nathan E. Nason of Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce , P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee Old Palm Golf Club, Inc.2 P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , T AYLOR and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Comments on: 17-2541: STRYKER CORPORATION v. ZIMMER, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
352P15

#### State v. Aswad Malik Jones

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-173)

Denied
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER TO F ILE S UPPLEMENTAL C LERK ’ S R ECORD

Appellate case name: In re Terr’l La’Yonne Mark, Relator

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 582

- C V

Trial court case number: 1 4

- DCV

- 214998

Trial court: 387 th/505th District Court of Fort Bend County

R elator, Terr’l La’yonne Mark, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this
Court seeking to compel the respondent , The Honorable Brenda G. Mullinix, to enter an order granting his motion to transfer venue without a hearing of the underlying suit affecting the parent

- child relationship from Fort Bend to Tarrant County. However, a fter reviewing the trial clerk’s websi te for the docket sheet and comparing it with the docket
sheet attached as Exhibit 19 to re lator’s appendix in support of his mandamus petition
filed in this Court, it appears that the above case w a s reassigned from the 387th to the
505th District Court of Fort Bend County , The Honorable David S. Perwin presiding. Mandamus will not issue against a new trial judge for what a former one did or
was asked to do. See In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland

, 280 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 2008); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.2(b) (“If the case is an original proceeding under Rule 52, the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.”). Accordingly, this Court lifts the stay previously imposed in this case and, p ursuant to Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 34.5 ( c) (1) , the tri al court cle rk is
ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified cop y of the docket sheet, entitled “Register of Actions,” for trial court case number 14

- DCV

- 214998

. The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the Clerk of the First Court of
A ppeals in the above

- referenced original proceeding number 01

- 15

- 00 582

- C V within 1 0 days of the date of this ord e r

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c)(1), (3).

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court
Date: July 22, 2016
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):


         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and


6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: August 12, 2004

/S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
--------------------
David J. Johnson
Interim President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       22


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32(b)






This Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such filing.






Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United States Code






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended  September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian X. Tierney, the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/ Brian X. Tierney


Brian X. Tierney


Chief Financial Officer






October 29, 2010






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
126 STAT. 1306 PUBLIC LAW 112–171—AUG. 16, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3670: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 112–487, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Veterans’ Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

May 30, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 2, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–171 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT TO THE 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111(d) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44935 note; Public Law 107–71) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), and notwithstanding’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT.—In carrying out the functions authorized 

under paragraph (1), the Under Secretary shall be subject 

to the provisions set forth in chapter 43 of title 38, United 

States Code.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection 

(a) shall take effect on the date that is 270 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Approved August 16, 2012. 

49 USC 44935 

note. 

Aug. 16, 2012 

[H.R. 3670] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
No. 11-1121.

#### Sutton *v.*Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 60-3.6 Use of selection procedures which have not been validated. A. *Use of alternate selection procedures to eliminate adverse impact.* A user may choose to utilize alternative selection procedures in order to eliminate adverse impact or as part of an affirmative action program. See section 13 of this part. Such alternative procedures should eliminate the adverse impact in the total selection process, should be lawful and should be as job related as possible. B. *Where validity studies cannot or need not be performed.* There are circumstances in which a user cannot or need not utilize the validation techniques contemplated by these guidelines. In such circumstances, the user should utilize selection procedures which are as job related as possible and which will minimize or eliminate adverse impact, as set forth below. ( 1 ) *Where informal or unscored procedures are used.* When an informal or unscored selection procedure which has an adverse impact is utilized, the user should eliminate the adverse impact, or modify the procedure to one which is a formal, scored or quantified measure or combination of measures and then validate the procedure in accord with these guidelines, or otherwise justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law.
( 2 ) *Where formal and scored procedures are used.* When a formal and scored selection procedure is used which has an adverse impact, the validation techniques contemplated by these guidelines usually should be followed if technically feasible. Where the user cannot or need not follow the validation techniques anticipated by these guidelines, the user should either modify the procedure to eliminate adverse impact or otherwise justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law.
Amendment to 4/11/2015 Request for Section 333 Exemption Photography 

July 23, 2015 

by/for 

Dan Skaggs 

HSEarchitects 

To: 

Brenda Roberson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Please accept this amendment in response to your letter of July 6, 2015. 

Regarding information required under 11.81 (b) 

We are requesting exemption from the following sections of 14 CFR: 

§§ 61.113(a); 91.7(a); 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a)(1) & (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allowing us to operate the UAS for the 

purpose of conducting aerial photography on architectural project and construction sites. 

Allowing these requested exemptions would be in the public interest and have the following public 

benefits: 

 1) Use of UAS aircraft would allow a safe aerial video inspection of building conditions to be conducted, 

which would not be feasible with the use of much larger manned aircraft. 

2) Use of UAS aircraft would allow a safe aerial video inspection of building conditions to be conducted, 

without the use of larger construction grade (lifts, cranes, etc) equipment and personnel along with their 

elevated safety risk concerns. 

3) Often we are faced with designing solutions for the repair and renovation of damaged existing 

buildings which requires exploratory inspection of damaged structures and roofs. The use of UAS in 

these scenarios would be of great benefit by reducing potential hazards of conducting inspections by 

use of personnel and equipment directly on these existing buildings. 

4) Use of UAS aircraft would allow a safe aerial video inspection of building conditions to be conducted, 

at less expense and with less potential construction intrusion that can affect the immediately 

surrounding neighborhood if large equipment is required. 

5) Use of UAS aircraft would allow a safe aerial photography of completed building projects, without the 

use of larger photography equipment and/or manned aircraft. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Dan Skaggs, principal, HSEarchitects
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1921: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AQCjkABPCH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-20-1921-zaxcom-inc-v-lectrosonics-inc-opinion-20-1921-opinion-2-18-2022_1910806\/\">20-1921: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-20-1921-zaxcom-inc-v-lectrosonics-inc-opinion-20-1921-opinion-2-18-2022_1910806\/embed\/#?secret=AQCjkABPCH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1921: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"AQCjkABPCH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1921 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Exhibit
32.2











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
            The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.























Marliss D.
Johnson


Vice President
Controller and Treasurer


November 6,
2009
#### § 105-8.170-10 Acceptance of appeals.

The Special Counsel shall accept and process any timely appeal. A party may appeal to the Deputy Administrator from a decision of the Special Counsel that an appeal is untimely. This appeal shall be filed within 15 days of receipt of the decision from the Special Counsel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q
09/30/95 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         262,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  406,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               668,000
<PP&E>                                      20,675,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (12,277,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,066,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          642,000
<BONDS>                                      2,853,000
<COMMON>                                     1,025,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,747,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,799,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,066,000
<SALES>                                      2,780,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,956,000
<CGS>                                        1,813,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,813,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,182,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             159,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (198,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (198,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (198,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)
        

</TABLE>
§ 301-71.204 Within how many calendar days after the submission of a proper travel claim must we reimburse the employee's allowable expenses? You must reimburse the employee within 30 calendar days after the employee submits a proper travel claim to the agency's designated approving office. You must use a satisfactory recordkeeping system to track submission of travel claims. For example, travel claims submitted by mail, in accordance with agency policy, could be annotated with the time and date of receipt by the agency. You could consider travel claims electronically submitted to the designated approving office as submitted on the date indicated on an e-mail log, or on the next business day if submitted after normal working hours. However, claims for the following relocation allowances are exempt from this provision: ( a ) Transportation and storage of household goods and professional books, papers and equipment;
( b ) Transportation of mobile home;
( c ) Transportation of a privately owned vehicle;
( d ) Temporary quarters subsistence expense, when not paid as lump sum;
( e ) Residence transaction expenses;
( f ) Relocation income tax allowance;
( g ) Use of a relocation services company;
( h ) Home marketing incentive payments; and
( i ) Allowance for property management services.
[FTR Amdt. 92, 65 FR 21366, Apr. 21, 2000]
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–13

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 391, THE

SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999

FEBRUARY 9, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 42]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 42, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 391, the

‘‘Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1999,’’

under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate

divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.

The rule waives section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act

(prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget authority or contract authority for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that fiscal year has been agreed to) against the consideration of the bill. The rule also provides that the bill will be considered as read.

Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given priority

in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent

with House rules. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill,

and to reduce votes to five minutes on a postponed question if the

vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one

motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
2

The waiver of section 303 of the Budget Act is necessary because

there is no FY 1999 budget resolution and Budget Committee

Chairman Kasich has not yet published in the Congressional

Record budget allocations pursuant to House Resolution 5.

Æ