alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Lee CAVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2011.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1978.

Sheldon M. Schapiro of Stone & Schapiro, P. A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

RIVKIND, LEONARD,

Associate Judge.

Appellant entered a nolo contendere plea to possession of PCP specifically reserving his right to appeal the order denying the *4motion to suppress evidence. He was sentenced to two years in state prison. Appellant had been arrested for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended driver’s license. A pat-down search was conducted at the scene. At the police station, during the booking process, a complete search of the person was undertaken. Personal effects were inventoried and placed in a property bag. A large bulge in his wallet was examined and revealed a plastic bag containing the contraband, PCP. We reject appellant’s contention that the search of the wallet was illegal. The search was incident to a lawful arrest. The trial judge was correct in denying the motion to suppress. *United States v. Robinson,*414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); *State v. Gustafson,*258 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972), *aff’d,*414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); *Christian v. State,*265 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); *Dolan v. State,*185 So.2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). We have also considered each of the other points raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1578

MANUEL T. RUFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00521-BO)

Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manuel T. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Manuel T. Ruffin appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Ruffin’s employment
discrimination action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Ruffin v. Dep’t of Corr. , No. 5:08-cv-00521-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2009). 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
# Lori Smith-Mitchell

### Program Manager

### 

### 

## Additive Manufacturing Program Overview

The AM Program leverages advanced technologies to shape acquisition, planning, and supply chain security across the DLA supply chain network. ​The capability to provide parts closer to the moment of need supports DLA’s goals as it enters the age of digital manufacturing.

## Strategic Focus

**Acceptability:**Accelerate AM part acceptance leveraging technology, JAMA​

**Product Data:** Improve access to the AM product data at the enterprise level​

**Product Development:** Creation and distribution of parts utilizing AM​

**Material Recycling:** Validate AM Material Recycling opportunities ​

**Digital Thread/ Remote Inspection/Augmented Reality:** Capitalize on available AM Digital emerging technologies for quality assurance measures for DLA AM part procurements and manufacturing​

**Distributed Manufacturing:** Establish a rapid response process for contingency operations readiness support​

## DLA Lines of Effort

 Industrial Base / Aging Weapon System Support, 3D Technical Data Modernization / Model Based Enterprise​

## Whole of Government Partnerships

        - OSD, MILDEPS
        - Manufacturing Innovation Institutes
        - Industry Academia
        - Major Subordinate Commands
        - DLA J-Codes​

## Contact Us

**Lori.Smith-Mitchell@dla.mil

**(717) 793-7112​

Find more information on DLA Research and Development.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1407 

To provide grants to States and local governments to assess the effectiveness 

of sexual predator electronic monitoring programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide grants to States and local governments to assess 

the effectiveness of sexual predator electronic monitoring 

programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jessica Lunsford and 

5 Sarah Lunde Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SEXUAL PREDATOR MONITORING PROGRAM. 

7 (a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General is au9 thorized to award grants (referred to as ‘‘Jessica 
2 

•S 1407 IS

1 Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Grants’’) to State and 

2 local governments to assist such States and local 

3 governments in— 

4 (A) carrying out programs to outfit sexual 

5 offenders with electronic monitoring units; and 

6 (B) the employment of law enforcement of7 ficials necessary to carry out such programs. 

8 (2) DURATION.—The Secretary shall award 

9 grants under this Act for a period not to exceed 3 

10 years. 

11 (b) APPLICATION.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Each State or local govern13 ment desiring a grant under this Act shall submit an 

14 application to the Attorney General at such time, in 

15 such manner, and accompanied by such information 

16 as the Attorney General may reasonably require. 

17 (2) CONTENTS.—Each application submitted 

18 pursuant to paragraph (1) shall— 

19 (A) describe the activities for which assist20 ance under this Act is sought; and 

21 (B) provide such additional assurances as 

22 the Attorney General determines to be essential 

23 to ensure compliance with the requirements of 

24 this Act. 
3 

•S 1407 IS

1 SEC. 3. INNOVATION. 

2 In making grants under this Act, the Attorney Gen3 eral shall ensure that different approaches to monitoring 

4 are funded to allow an assessment of effectiveness. 

5 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

6 In this Act, the term ‘‘sexual offender’’ means an of7 fender 18 years of age or older who commits a sexual of8 fense against a minor. 

9 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro11 priated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 

12 through 2008 to carry out this Act. 

13 (b) REPORT.—Not later than April 1, 2008, the At14 torney General shall report to Congress— 

15 (1) assessing the effectiveness and value of pro16 grams funded by this Act; 

17 (2) comparing the cost-effectiveness of the elec18 tronic monitoring to reduce sex offenses compared to 

19 other alternatives; and 

20 (3) making recommendations for continuing 

21 funding and the appropriate levels for such funding. 

Æ
Exhibit 32.2  EXHIBIT TO DECEMBER 31,
2014, FORM 10-Q/A OF PCS EDVENTURES!.COM, INC.



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 PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2014,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Russelee V. Horsburgh,
Vice President 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, to the best of my knowledge:



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



(2) The information contained in the Quarterly
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Date: | March 20, 2015 |  | By: | /s/ Russelee V. Horsburgh                                      
|----- | -------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|      |                |  |     | Vice President/Controller
        (principle financial officer)



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.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1413

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2005

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT

To redesignate the Crowne Plaza in Kingston, Jamaica as 

the Colin L. Powell Residential Plaza.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1413 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COLIN L. POWELL RESIDEN2 TIAL PLAZA. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building in King4 ston, Jamaica, formerly known as the Crowne Plaza and 

5 now a staff housing facility for the United States mission 

6 in Jamaica, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Colin 

7 L. Powell Residential Plaza’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

11 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Colin L. Pow12 ell Residential Plaza.

Passed the Senate July 15, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
No. 00-6894.

#### Washington *v.*Louisiana State Board of Private Security Examiners.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Joseph Anthony BERNIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 28, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Victoria J. Powell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. The judgment and order of probation, while indicating the appellant was to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1) Florida Statutes. *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

*218Remanded for correction of the order of probation; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.
#### Raymond BRITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 23, 1977.

As Amended Dec. 2, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and J. Marion Moorman, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant Raymond Britt entered a plea of guilty to a charge of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to a term of fifteen years in prison with credit for jail time. The court immediately suspended said sentence and placed appellant on fifteen years probation.

Subsequently, appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation. Appellant entered a guilty plea to these violations and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison followed by probation for the balance of the original fifteen year sentence.

Thereafter, appellant moved to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the original charge and to the probation violation charge and to *149vacate the sentence imposed upon him. This motion we deem to have been filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. After hearing, the trial court denied the motion and appellant appeals.

Appellant argues the trial judge should have granted his motion to set aside his pleas because he did not enter into those pleas voluntarily because both his own court-appointed counsel and the court led him to believe the maximum sentence was fifteen rather than five years.

It is clear from the facts of this case that there was a general misapprehension among all the parties involved as to the length of the time which appellant could be imprisoned. Even the trial court believed that appellant could receive a fifteen year sentence when, in fact, under Sections 810.-05 and 775.082(5), Florida Statutes (1973), appellant could only receive a five-year sentence.

A person induced to give up his right to a trial by a misapprehension of circumstances surrounding his plea is entitled to vacation of any judgment and sentence resulting from such a plea. *Bartz v. State,*221 So.2d 7 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).

In view hereof, the order appealed from should be, and is hereby, reversed; and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

OTT, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
#### Frankie JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-50.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by Frankie Jones from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial on drug related charges, and sentence thereon, the sole point raised is that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial based on alleged improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument. From our review of the record in this case, no error is shown as statements made by defense counsel in opening and closing arguments invited the prosecutor’s comments. See *Whitney v. State,*132 So.2d 599 (Fla.1961); *Ricks v. State,*242 So.2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); *Francis v. State,*343 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2225]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Physics; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces that a 
Special Emphasis Panel in Physics (1208) will be holding telephone 
conferences for the purpose of reviewing proposals submitted to the 
Theoretical Physics Program. In order to review the large volume of 
proposals, telephone panel conferences will be held February 18-21(6), 
and February 24-28(6), 1997. All meetings will be closed to the public 
and will be held at the National Science Foundation, Room 1015, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.

    Contact Person: Dr. Boris Kayser, Program Director for 
Theoretical Physics, Division of Physics, Room 1015, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1889.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), 4 and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 24, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-2225 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Knoth, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Form 10-QSB of IEH Corporation;

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 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, is made known to us by others within the
company, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) [Reserved]

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

d) Presented in this quarterly report our 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 and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function);

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
over financial reporting 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 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 10, 2006

/s/ Robert Knoth
-------------------------------
Robert Knoth
Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer


                                       28
PUBLIC LAW 110–399—OCT. 13, 2008 122 STAT. 4223 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6874: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Sept. 23, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–399 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 156 Taunton 

Avenue in Seekonk, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Eric Paul Valdepenas 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL ERIC PAUL VALDEPEN ̃ AS POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 156 Taunton Avenue in Seekonk, Massachusetts, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Eric Paul 

Valdepen ̃ as Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Eric Paul Valdepen ̃ as Post Office Building’’. 

Approved October 13, 2008. 

Oct. 13, 2008 

[H.R. 6874] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

Infants Can Die When Their Heads

Become Trapped in Stro l l e rs

009611

NEVER leave a child unattended in a stroller because the

child may slip into a leg opening, become entrapped by the

head, and die.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) warns that babies can die if they are left

unattended to sleep in strollers. They may slip feet

first, through a leg opening, and become

entrapped by the head between the seat and the

handrest bar. In a recent one-year period, an estimated 14,400 children under age 5 were treated in

hospital emergency rooms for injuries associated

with strollers. Most of the injuries resulted from

falls, and almost 90 percent of the fall injuries were

to the head. On average, about two children die

each year from stroller-related incidents. Many of

these deaths happen when children are left unattended to sleep in strollers reclined to the “carriage” position. They may slip feet first through a

leg opening and become entrapped by the head

between the seat and restraint bar. To avoid incidents of entrapment in stroller leg openings, CPSC

advises infant caretakers to:

1. Never leave a child unattended in a stroller.

This is especially important if the stroller seat’s

backrest is in the flat “carriage” position.

2. Be aware that infants only a few weeks old can

creep or move when asleep. The youngest victim was an infant just seven weeks old.
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 


Date: 

To: AI Spence, Directives Program Manager, Office of IT Enterprise Services, 

AES-200 

From: !~~~~;Cleene, Man P~t#jtl and Procedures Division, 

Subject: Cancellation of Advisory Circular (AC) 90-45A 

AC 90-45A, Approval ofArea Navigation Systems for Use in the U.S. National Airspace System, 

should be cancelled. The document refers to legacy, rudimentary VOR/DME systems, and is no 

longer the standard for Area Navigation (RNAV) reference or approval. 

Operators will find relevant information regarding airworthiness and operational considerations 

in AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval ofPositioning and Navigation Systems· and AC 90­

1OOA, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations. Additional 

information can be found in AC 90-108, Use ofSuitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on 

Conventional Routes and Procedures, and AC 90-105, Approval Guidance for RNP Operations 

and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System and in Remote, and 

Oceanic Airspace. 

Obstacle clearance for RNA V procedures, discussed in the document, is located in Order 8260.3, 

United States Standardfor Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and Order 8260.53, 

Standard Instrument Departures That Use Radar Vectors to Join RNAVRoutes and guidance tor 

geodesic information computation is included in Order 8260.58, The United States Standardfor 

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design. 

If you have questions or concerns please contact Trent Bigler, Aviation Safety Inspector, 202­

267-8844 or trent.bigler@faa.gov. 

08/27/14