alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
46872.

#### PBJ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY et al. v. HOLBEN et al.

(385 SE2d 658)

Bell, Justice.

This appeal stems from an order finding the appellants in criminal contempt of an interlocutory injunction that directed the appellants to take certain erosion-control steps to prevent the discharge of silt and mud from their construction site onto the appellees’ residential property. On appeal the appellants raise three issues. We find no merit to two of the appellants’ contentions, but find it necessary to affirm on condition with regard to the third argument.

1. The appellants complain of the lack of specificity concerning the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. This argument has no merit, however, because findings of fact and conclusions of law are not even necessary in contempt cases. *Hopkins v. Hopkins,*244 Ga. 66, 67-68 (2) (257 SE2d 900) (1979).

2. The appellants next argue that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding of criminal contempt. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellees, we conclude that any rational trier of fact could have found the appellants in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. See *In re Irvin,*254 Ga. 251, 256 (2) (328 SE2d 215) (1985).

3. The appellants’ final argument is that the trial court erred in failing to apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard that is now applicable to criminal-contempt cases. See *In re Crane,*253 Ga. 667, 669-670 (2) (324 SE2d 443) (1985). The record does not indicate that the trial court applied the correct standard, but we conclude that the proper remedy is to affirm the finding of contempt on the condition that the trial court state whether it applied the correct standard.1 See *Lee v. Precision Balancing &c., Inc.,*134 Ga. App. 762, 764 (216 SE2d *595640) (1975); *Berry v. State,*254 Ga. 101, 104 (1) (326 SE2d 748) (1985). If the court states that it did so, the appellants are entitled to no further appeal.

Decided November 22, 1989.

*Weekes & Candler, Mark G. Burnette,*for appellants.

*Decker & Hallman, Richard P. Decker, Marlene J. Griffith, R. Patrick White,*for appellees.

If the court states that it did not apply the correct standard, then the trial court is to proceed to apply the correct standard. If the trial court then concludes the evidence is sufficient under the correct standard, the appellants are entitled to no further appeal. If the trial court concludes the evidence does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, the appellees can appeal that judgment if they so desire.

*Judgment affirmed on condition.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Compare *Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co.,*258 Ga. 705 (373 SE2d 740) (1988), and *Life for God’s Stray Animals v. New North &c.,*256 Ga. 338 (2) (349 SE2d 184) (1986). In those cases we vacated the judgments of contempt and remanded to the trial courts for them to apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. The remedy we use in the present case is a more efficient use of judicial resources.
No. 10-10920.

#### Wallace *v.*United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.1072 Limitation on Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. ( a ) Supplier's Declaration of Conformity signifies that the responsible party, as defined in § 2.909, has determined that the equipment has been shown to comply with the applicable technical standards and other applicable requirements if no unauthorized change is made in the equipment and if the equipment is properly maintained and operated. Compliance with these standards and other applicable requirements shall not be construed to be a finding by the responsible party with respect to matters not encompassed by the Commission's rules.
( b ) Supplier's Declaration of Conformity by the responsible party, as defined in § 2.909, is effective until a termination date is otherwise established by the Commission.
( c ) No person shall, in any advertising matter, brochure, etc., use or make reference to Supplier's Declaration of Conformity in a deceptive or misleading manner or convey the impression that such Supplier's Declaration of Conformity reflects more than a determination by the manufacturer, importer, integrator, or responsible party, as defined in § 2.909, that the device or product has been shown to be capable of complying with the applicable technical standards of the Commission's rules.
[82 FR 50829, Nov. 2, 2017, as amended at 88 FR 7625, Feb. 6, 2023]
§ 101.5 Station authorization required. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) A separate application form must be filed electronically via ULS for each Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS) Nodal Station. No license is required for a DEMS User Station or for a Multiple Address System (MAS) remote or mobile station. Authority for a DEMS Nodal Station licensee to serve a specific number of user stations to be licensed in the name of the carrier must be requested on FCC Form 601 filed for the DEMS Nodal Station. Authority for any number of MAS remotes and authority to serve MAS mobiles (to the extent this part permits such operation) within a specified area will be included in the authority for the MAS fixed master stations.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) For stations authorized under subpart H (Private Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service), subpart I (Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service), and subpart L of this part (Local Multipoint Distribution Service), construction of new or modified stations may be initiated prior to grant of an authorization. As a condition to commencing construction under this paragraph (d), the Commission may, at any time and without hearing or notice, prohibit such construction for any reason. Any construction conducted under this paragraph is at the applicant's sole risk.
[61 FR 26677, May 28, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 23164, Apr. 29, 1997; 63 FR 68981, Dec. 14, 1998; 68 FR 4955, Jan. 31, 2003]
EXHIBIT 10.6.1





AMENDMENT NUMBER 1


TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


For


SENIOR LENDER





Citizens Bancshares of Southwest Florida, Inc. and Citizens National Bank of Southwest Florida (Employer) and Craig Sherman (Executive) hereby amend
the Employment Agreement for Senior Lender entered into by and between the parties on May 3, 1999, as follows:





Section 2, Term, is hereby amended in its entirety to now read as follows:





Unless earlier terminated as set forth herein, the initial term of employment under this Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years, commencing on May 3, 1999. At the end of this initial three-year term and at the end
of each subsequent three-year term thereafter, if any, unless either party gives the other party written notice of non-renewal of this Agreement by July 31st expiration date (and this Agreement is not, or has not been, terminated sooner as provided
herein), the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for an additional three-year term.





IN
WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment Number 1 to Employment Agreement for Senior Lender on July 30, 2001.





CITIZENS BANCSHARES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC./s/    PATRICIA A. HALLWitnessBy:

/s/    JOE B. COX





/s/    MEJA MCKENNAJoe B. Cox Chairman of the
Board





Witness








CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA/s/    PATRICIA A. HALLWitnessBy:

/s/    JOE B. COX





/s/    MEJA MCKENNAJoe B. Cox Chairman of the
Board





Witness








EXECUTIVE/s/    JOHN J. COFFEY, V.P.WitnessBy:

/s/    CRAIG SHERMAN





/s/    PATRICIA A. HALLCraig Sherman





Witness
**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K 

OF PINNACLE DATASYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certificationaccompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Issuer for the annual period ended December 31, 2006. 

I, George A. Troutman,certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

This certification is executed as of March 30, 2007.
049P16

#### State v. Ahking Kaliek Williams

Def’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-551)

Denied
No. 11-1237.

#### Miranda *v.*United States.

C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.
#### § 60-30.18 Rules of evidence.

In any hearing, decision, or administrative review conducted pursuant to this part, all evidentiary matters shall be governed by Office of Administrative Law Judges' Rules of evidence at 29 CFR part 18, subpart B, *Provided however,* That the provision at 29 CFR 18.1104 which delays the effective date of the rule with respect to certain investigations does not apply.

[55 FR 19069, May 8, 1990]
No. 11-967.

#### Najbar *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
This document was developed by the FDA’s 

Office of Women’s Health (OWH) and the 

National Association of Chain Drug Stores 

(NACDS).

About 30% to 50% of those who use 

medicines do not use them as directed. 

This causes more doctor visits, hospital 

stays, lost wages, and changed 

prescriptions. All this costs Americans 

more than $100 billion each year.

Adults often take care of medicines for 

the whole family as well as themselves. 

So we need to read the label, avoid 

problems, ask questions, and keep a 

record.

1. READ THE LABEL

Before you take any medicine, read the 

label. The label should show:

List of ingredients - If you know you 

are allergic to anything in the medicine, 

don’t use it. Ask your doctor or pharmacist

for a different medicine.

Warnings - Read these carefully.

The expiration date - Do not use a 

medicine after the date on the bottle. It 

may not work as well. 

For more information on your medicines 

ask your pharmacist.

2. AVOID PROBLEMS

Medicines can cause problems or side 

effects such as sleepiness, vomiting, 

bleeding, headaches, or rashes. Ask about 

the side effects of the medicines you are 

taking. Talk with your doctor, pharmacist, 

or nurse. 

Organize your medicines.

Do not skip taking your medicines.

Do not share medicines.

Do not take medicine in the dark.

USE MEDICINES WISELY

FOR YOURSELF ... FOR THOSE WHO NEED YOU

TAKE TIME TO CARE

http://www.fda.gov/womens

FOR YOURSELF... FOR THOSE WHO NEED YOU

TAKE TIME TO CARE
3. ASK QUESTIONS

• What is the medicine's name? 

• Is there a generic available?

• Why am I taking this medicine?

• When should I take it?

• Should I take this on an empty

 stomach or with food?

• Is it safe to drink alcohol with it?

• If I forget to take it, what should I

 do?

• How much should I take?

• How long am I to take it?

• What problems should I watch for?

If you are pregnant or nursing a baby, seek 

the advice of a health professional before 

taking any medication or diet supplement. 

Talk with your doctor, pharmacist, or nurse. 

She/he will be happy to help you.

List any allergies

Doctor

Phone number

4. KEEP A RECORD OF 

 MEDICINES YOU USE

Check boxes for the ones you use:

 Aspirin or other pain/headache/ 

 fever medicine

 

 Allergy medicine

 Antacids

 

 Cold medicine

 Cough medicine

 Diet pill/supplements

 Laxatives

 Sleeping pills

 

 Vitamins

 Minerals

 Herbals

 Others

KEEP THIS IN YOUR PURSE OR POCKET AND SHOW IT TO YOUR DOCTOR, PHARMACIST, OR 

NURSE.

NAME:

LIST YOUR PRESCRIPTION MEDICINES

HOW

MUCH

DO I TAKE

WHEN

DO I TAKE IT

WHAT DO

I USE IT FOR REFILLS

1 tablet

400 mg

3 times a day

after meals Arthritis 2

NAME OF MY

DATE MEDICINE

EXAMPLE XXXX

Have your doctor, pharmacist, or nurse report serious medication problems to the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.
{"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":"22-1812: KAETZ v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tQiROaHAI6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/07-22-2022-22-1812-kaetz-v-us-order-22-1812-order-7-22-2022_1981773\/\">22-1812: KAETZ v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/07-22-2022-22-1812-kaetz-v-us-order-22-1812-order-7-22-2022_1981773\/embed\/#?secret=tQiROaHAI6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1812: KAETZ v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"tQiROaHAI6\" 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":"ORDER Posted: KAETZ v. US [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1812 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-5336.

#### Searcy *v.*Culhane et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH ZIADEH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00273-JRS-1)

Submitted: February 29, 2012 Decided: March 16, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, 

Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Gregg Robert Nivala, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ziadeh appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motions to modify final restitution payment and to 

direct the Government to stay the tax lien sale of certain 

property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Ziadeh, No. 3:02-cr-00273-JRS1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2011). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.325 Discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, copying, or photographing. ( a ) A party to a Commission proceeding may request any other party except the Commission to produce and permit inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the requesting party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things which constitute or contain evidence within the scope of the examination permitted by § 1.311(b) of this part and which are in his possession, custody, or control or to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for purposes of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated object or operation thereon within the scope of the examination permitted by § 1.311(b) of this part. ( 1 ) Copies of the request shall be filed with the Commission and served on the presiding officer and all other parties to the hearing proceeding.
( 2 ) The party against whom the request was made must, within 10 days, comply with the request or object to the request, claiming a privilege or raising other proper objections. If the request is not complied with in whole or in part, the requesting party may file a motion to compel production of documents or access to property with the presiding officer. A motion to compel must be accompanied by a copy of the original request and the responding party's objection or claim of privilege. Motions to compel must be filed within five business days of the objection or claim of privilege.
( 3 ) In resolving any disputes involving the production of documents or access to property, the presiding officer may direct that the materials objected to be presented to him for *in camera* inspection.
( b ) Any party seeking the production of Commission records should proceed under § 0.460 or § 0.461 of this chapter. See §§ 0.451 through 0.467.
[33 FR 463, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended at 40 FR 39509, Aug. 28, 1975; 56 FR 794, Jan. 9, 1991; 56 FR 25639, June 5, 1991; 76 FR 70908, Nov. 16, 2011; 85 FR 63181, Oct. 6, 2020]
No. 11-9535.

#### Hadaway *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9850.

#### Meadoweal *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[Program Announcement 00095]


Cooperative Agreement for Birth Defects Surveillance, Research, 
and Prevention Activities; Notice of Availability of Funds

A. Purpose

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the 
availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement 
program for the University of South Alabama Birth Defects Surveillance, 
Research, and Prevention Activities.

B. Eligible Applicants

    Single Source: Assistance will be provided only to the University 
of South Alabama. No other applications are solicited.
    This authority is granted under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
2000 (Public Law 106-113), which states: ``* * * under section 1509 of 
the Public Health Service Act * * * $1,000,000 shall be for the 
University of South Alabama birth defects monitoring and prevention 
activities.''

C. Availability of Funds

    Approximately $800,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund this award. 
It is expected that the award will begin on or about September 30, 
2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project 
period of only 1 year. Funding estimates may change.

D. Where To Obtain Additional Information

    If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the 
documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained 
from: William A. Paradies, Grants Management Specialist, Grants 
Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 
30341-4146, Telephone number (770) 488-2721, Email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98cfc8f9eaf9fcf1fdebd8fbfcfbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2a5a2938093969b9781b2919691dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For program technical assistance, contact: Larry D. Edmonds, State 
Services, Birth Defects and Pediatric Genetics Branch, Division of 
Birth Defects, Child Development, Disability and Health, National 
Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-45, Atlanta, GA 
30341-3724, Telephone number (770) 488-7171, E-mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39757c5d5456575d4a795a5d5a175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c48881a0a9abaaa0b784a7a0a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 27, 2000.
John L. Williams,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 00-16719 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.907 Certification. ( a ) Certification is an equipment authorization approved by the Commission or issued by a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) and authorized under the authority of the Commission, based on representations and test data submitted by the applicant.
( b ) Certification attaches to all units subsequently marketed by the grantee which are identical (see § 2.908) to the sample tested except for permissive changes or other variations authorized by the Commission pursuant to § 2.1043.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Any equipment otherwise eligible for authorization pursuant to the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, or exempt from equipment authorization, produced by any entity identified on the Covered List, established pursuant to § 1.50002 of this chapter, as producing covered communications equipment must obtain equipment authorization through the certification process.
[39 FR 5919, Feb. 15, 1974, as amended at 39 FR 27802, Aug. 1, 1974; 63 FR 36597, July 7, 1998; 80 FR 33439, June 12, 2015; 88 FR 7623, Feb. 6, 2023]
024P16

#### State v. Oakland McCulloch

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay

1. Allowed 01/21/2016

2. State's Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*
DOT-OST' m7^2fZ^ 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: Bob McFate (McFate Law office) [mcfatelaw@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:46 AM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Cc: chamber@VENANG0CHAMBER.ORG 

Subject: Venango Regional Airport 

Mr. Dennis J.DeVany cvi 

Chief, Essential Service District X-53 1^ 

Office of Aviation Analytics o 

US Department of Transportation 'II 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 > 

"XD 

Dear Mr. DeVany: '., 3 

As an attorney and business owner in Venango County, Pennsylvania, I, along with many other business and " 

professional people here, am very interested in keeping critical air passenger service into and out of Venango Regional 

Airport. 

We strongly support service as set forth in Gulfstream International's proposal for continuation of air service to our 

community. We commit to using air service provided by Gulfstream International connecting with Cleveland Hopkins 

Airport to and from Venango Regional Airport. 

Sincerely, 

Robert W. McFate, Esq. 

P.O. Box 407 

3178 State Route 257 

Seneca, PA 16346 

(814)676-3933 

FAX: (814) 676-6900 

mcfatelaw@comcast.net
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 1.28-1.29 [Reserved]