alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Antonio DO COUTO et ux., Appellants, v. ITT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. DD-22.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 1977.

*1060Michael D. Chiumento, Flagler Beach, for appellants.

Philip J. Chanfrau, Jr., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Antonio Do Couto who, a reading of the record readily reveals, experiences some difficulty with the English language, first discussed the purchase of a lot from appellee with appellee’s New Jersey salesman. Do Couto explained in detail his intended use of the lot and the salesman understood the intended use and purpose. That salesman arranged for Do Couto to meet with appellee’s on-site salesman in Florida who was also told, and understood, Do Couto’s needs and requirements. After visiting numerous lots in the company of the on-site salesman Do Couto was finally shown a corner lot which the salesman measured with the help of Do Couto and represented to Do Couto that the lot was suitable for Do Couto’s needs and purposes. In an abundance of precaution, before commencing construction, Do Couto conversed with his neighbors and finally went to the Flagler County Courthouse to ascertain whether there were any governmental permits which would be required before construction was commenced. Alas, however, it now appears that although Do Couto told two ITT salesmen exactly what he intended to build, that he made inquiry to determine whether there were any governmental permits required for such building, and he has now built exactly what he intended to build (a large double garage) a mandatory injunction has been entered by the trial court, at the instance of ITT, and not Do Couto’s neighbors, requiring removal of the improvement because it violates set-back lines. A witness called by ITT, one of its agents, who had never seen the offending improvement, testified that it did violence to ITT’s scheme of development. An architect, called by appellant, who had personally examined the lot, structure and surrounding area testified that the improvement was not offensive and damaged neither Do Cou-to’s lot nor the community. It is significant, we think, that the complainant is ITT and not Do Couto’s neighbors.

The remedy of injunction is drastic and should be granted cautiously and sparingly. *Johnson v. Killian,*157 Fla. 754, 27 So.2d 345 (1946). The learned trial judge applied cold legal tenents instead of engaging in a balancing of the equities. See *Ortega Company v. Justiss,*175 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). No detriment has been suffered by ITT nor will it enjoy any advantage by a removal of the improvement. On the other hand, by requiring Do Couto to remove the improvement he will have been deprived of the purpose for which the property was initially acquired, with the knowledge of ITT, and will suffer a monetary loss of between $10,000 and $22,000. Equity is not so cold.

Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the mandatory injunction and to enter judgment in favor of appellants.

BOYER, C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


                This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”)
is entered into and effective as of September 1, 2007 by and between OpBiz,
L.L.C. (“Employer”), and Mark Helm (“Employee”).


 


                Whereas, the Employer and Employee are parties to an
Employment Agreement dated November 2, 2004 (the “Agreement”);


 


                Whereas, Employer and Employee wish to make certain
amendments to the Agreement as set forth below;


 


                Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration,
the Employer and Employee agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


The
parties wish to amend Section 2 of the Agreement as follows:


Effective Date; Specified Term.  Subject to earlier termination as provided in
the Agreement, the term of the Employee’s employment hereunder shall be
extended commencing on November 2, 2007 and terminating on the third
anniversary thereof (the “Specified Term”). 
If Employee remains employed by Employer following the Specified Term,
any such employment shall be on an at-will basis, unless the parties agree in
writing to extend the Specified Term.


This
Amendment shall act to amend the terms as conditions set forth in the Agreement
as set forth herein and all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.  The
Agreement, as so amended, shall supersede and replace any and all other prior
discussions and negotiations as well as any and all agreements and arrangements
that may have been entered into by and between Employee or any predecessor thereof,
on the one hand, and Employee, on the other hand, prior to the date first
written above relating to the subject matter hereof.  Employee acknowledges that all rights under
such prior agreements and arrangements shall be extinguished.


 


1

















 


                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer and
Employee have entered into this Amendment in Las Vegas, Nevada, as of the date
first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  “EMPLOYEE”

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MARK HELM

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  “EMPLOYER”

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  OpBiz, L.L.C.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
					



 


 


2
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

      In connection  with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of eLEC  COMMUNICATIONS
CORP.  (the  "Company")  for the year ended November 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Paul H.
Riss, as Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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 operations
            of the Company.

Date: March 2, 2006                        By: /s/ Paul H. Riss
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Paul H. Riss
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer

________________________________________________________________________________

      This  certification  accompanies  each  Report  pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 00-775.

#### Paciulan et al. *v.*George, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, et al. *v.*United States

No. 6964.

Entry No. 3087.

Invoices dated London, England, March 1944, etc.

Certified March 1944, etc.

Entered at Philadelphia, Pa., April 25, 1944, etc.

(Decided March 5, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a'part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

Certification of Treasurer



I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Big Sky Industries III, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Dated: February 2, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer
|   | (a) | the                Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31,                2006,                filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission                (the                "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Joseph E.                Sutaris                      |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph                E. Sutaris                                                                                                                                                  |   |
|   | Secretary,                Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                   |   |
|   | Date:                May                8, 2006                                                                                                                                   |   |
#### In re INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 77-19.

No. 51908.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1977.

Woodrow M. Melvin, Milton, Chairman and John T. Wigginton, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, petitioner.

C. Harris Dittmar, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court upon the request of the Judicial Qualifications Commission to suspend without pay the respondent Samuel S. Smith as a circuit judge pending disposition of proceedings on formal charges filed by the Commission against the respondent and made a part of this proceeding.

This Court received the request on Thursday, June 23, 1977, and it appearing that the respondent had been afforded no opportunity to be heard before the Judicial Qualifications Commission, we issued an order directing the respondent Samuel S. Smith to show cause in writing on or before 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, 1977, why suspension without pay should not be granted as requested. The order to show cause, the formal charges, and the request for suspension were personally served upon the respondent on Friday, June 24, 1977. A response has been filed by the respondent Samuel S. Smith consenting to the entry of an order officially suspending him but requesting that the Court deny the Commission’s request that he be suspended without pay.

We find that conviction in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for felony violations of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 812 and 841(a)(1), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2, are clearly sufficient grounds to suspend a judicial officer of this state without pay.

We hereby grant the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s request for suspension *without*pay of the respondent Samuel S. Smith as a circuit judge until further order of this Court.

It is so ordered. This suspension without pay shall be effective at 11:59 p.m., June 30, 1977.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
#### In re Joseph J. TOSH.

No. 98-B-2206.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 16, 1998.

ON MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE INTERIM SUSPENSION

PER CURIAM. *

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed multiple counts of formal charges against respondent, Joseph J. Tosh, primarily arising from the activities of his secretary. Subsequently, the ODC filed a motion for immediate interim suspension pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19B. Respondent opposed the motion. On September 4, 1998, this court remanded the matter to the hearing committee in order for respondent to show cause why the immediate interim suspension should not be imposed. Respondent appeared at the hearing.

On September 16, 1998, the hearing committee issued its report to this court. The committee concluded that respondent was clearly responsible for the actions of his secretary, and her continued association with his law practice (despite respondent’s representations to the contrary) created a substantial threat of serious public harm. Accordingly, the committee found an immediate interim suspension was appropriate.

Based upon the evidence developed at the committee’s hearing, it is the decision of this court that respondent be immediately placed on interim suspension pending further orders of this court. In the event respondent is able to provide the ODC with satisfactory, affirmative evidence of measures removing the continuing threat of serious public harm, he may file a motion to dissolve the interim suspension pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19B(D).

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents from the order. Interim suspension, under these facts, is not supported, in my view.

*

 Knoll, J. not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20310]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): 1997 Extramural Applied Research Program in 
Emerging Infections--Novel Methods for Identification of Emerging 
Infections, Program Announcement 778: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Name: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
SEP: 1997 Extramural Applied Research Program in Emerging 
Infections--Novel Methods for Identification of Emerging Infections, 
Program Announcement 778.
    Time and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., August 25-29, 1997.
    Place: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton 
Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
    Status: Closed.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to 
Program Announcement 778.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., 
and the Determination of the Associate Director for Management and 
Operations, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463.
    Contact Person for More Information: Gregory J. Jones, M.P.A., 
Office of the Director, National Center for Infectious Diseases, 
CDC, M/S C19, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 
telephone 404/639-2434.

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 97-20310 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 96-7919.

#### Marshall *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### Ex parte BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY.

SC 2589.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 24, 1977.

MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### James Roland COVINGTON v. Bess Alene B. COVINGTON.

No. 49421.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 2, 1977.

Warner, Ray & Cobb, George D. Warner, Jr., Meridian, for appellant.

Singley, Minniece, Hamilton, Neville & Hamill, James T. Singley, Meridian, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; William Neville, Chancellor.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
February 24, 2000

No. 99-1125.

#### Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, Inc. *v.*Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc., et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed as to Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Frank P. Sebree; and Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi under this Court’s Rule 46.1.
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. v. United States

No. 6605.

Entry No. 757464, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, April 16, 1946, etc.

Certified April 16, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 3, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff,

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer *on*entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Martin, Michael COST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Everyone:

Martin, Michael (OSD

Friday, April 18, 2014 12:S6 PM

(ranellfencha k@flyjohnstownairport.com); William Schirf (cqu, neil~a.lt9onapa:g.oy); ~pm

Hite (t36h@aol.com) ',.1, .• " •. ~ ' - .

Dave Hackett (dhackett@gosunair.com);josh@eitylinkair.com; Travis Christ

(Travis.Christ@silverairways.com); Jamie Kogutek (Jamie.Kogutek@silverairways.com);

Daniel Helland (daniel@boutiqueair.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OSD; Faulk, Scott (OST);

Gormas, Michael (OST)

EASat Altoona and Johnstown, PA

Sun Air Proposal to Provide EASat Altoona and Johnstown Pennsylvania.pdf; Silver

Proposal to Provide EASat Altoona and Johnstown - April 2014.pdf; City Link Proposal

to Provide EASat Altoona - April 2014.pdf; City Link Proposal to Provide EASat

Johnstown - April 2014.pdf; Boutique Proposal tei Provide EASat Altoona and

Johnstown - April 2014.pdf

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Altoona and Johnstown, as well as give you an

opportunity to offer any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for

Aviation and International Affairs. We issued Order 2014-2-6 (February 6,2014), requesting proposals from airlines

interested in providing EASfor a new term. In response to our request, four air carriers submitted proposals: Silver

Airways (the incumbent), Boutique Air, City Link Air, and Sun Air.

I have attached each air carrier's proposal for your review and I expect them to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov

sometime this afternoon. I request that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as

possible, but no later than Wednesday, May 28. Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at

michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this to all relevant parties that I have not included on the distribution

list.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Michael Martin

United States Department of Transportation

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP)

(202) 366-6494

1