alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHARLES W. ACKERMAN OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. FRANK J. ROONEY, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 38493.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1969.

Jackson L. Peters, of Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for petitioner.

James E. Glass, of Rosenberg, Rosenberg, Reisman & Glass, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in' this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the Writ was improvidently issued. Therefore, the Writ is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0789. LEWIS v. THE STATE.

This case was docketed by this Court on November 16, 2018, and appellant’s

brief and enumerations of error were due December 6, 2018. As of the date of this

order, appellant still has not filed a brief and enumeration of errors and has not

requested an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED as abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rules 13 and 23.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 12, 2018

12/12/2018
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6361** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CURTIS JERMAINE MALLOY, a/k/a Quest , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00362

- BO

- 1; 5:13

- cv - 00400

- BO )

Submitted : July 28, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Curtis Jermaine Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Nathan A. Huff, Joshua Bryan Royster, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; William Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Jermaine Malloy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C . § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive proced ural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Malloy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingl y, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000723610
<NAME> STRATUS COMPUTER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           77587
<SECURITIES>                                     64125
<RECEIVABLES>                                   163157
<ALLOWANCES>                                      8633
<INVENTORY>                                      70733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                407857
<PP&E>                                          329716
<DEPRECIATION>                                  210108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  605882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           111977
<BONDS>                                           4465
<COMMON>                                           258
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      489181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    605882
<SALES>                                          91119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                142925
<CGS>                                            48057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   131252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1895)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  13568
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2985
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10583
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45



</TABLE>
#### CITY OF TAMPA, Petitioner, v. Alfonso SEDITA, Respondent.

No. 78-726.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 7, 1978.

Thomas K. Morrison, Asst. City Atty., Tampa, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek review of the matters therein by way of an appeal from the final judgment. *Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover,*338 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc.,*287 So.2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and OTT, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

         In connection  with the annual report of PHAZAR CORP (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009,  as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned
Principal  Executive Officer and 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:

         (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.


/s/ Garland P. Asher
---------------------------------
Garland P. Asher
Principal Executive Officer


/s/ Deborah A. Inzer
---------------------------------
Deborah A. Inzer
Chief Financial Officer




























                                EXHIBIT 32.1 - 1
#### Ruben MONZON, Appellant, v. Linda S. MONZON, Appellee.

No. 76-1353.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 19, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1977.

Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf and William E. Sadowski, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Arthur E. Huttoe, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ruben Monzon, respondent in the trial court, appeals those provisions of a dissolution of marriage judgment awarding his ex-wife, Linda, the jointly owned marital residence as partial lump sum alimony and rehabilitative alimony of $500 per month for 18 months. Appellant also appeals a subsequent order determining that Linda’s attorney is entitled to a $5,000 fee and directing appellant to pay $3,500 thereof.

With respect to appellant’s first point on appeal, contending error in the awards of the marital residence and rehabilitative alimony, it is now well established that the courts have broad discretion to utilize and award any combination of reha*196bilitative alimony, lump sum alimony, periodic permanent alimony, etc. *Lee v. Lee,*309 So.2d 26 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The record reflects that Linda provided the bulk of the down payment for the marital residence and that she quit her job at appellant’s request. There being competent substantial evidence to support the above awards, we cannot say the chancellor abused his discretion and it is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence. See *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).

Appellant secondly argues that the chancellor erred in assuming jurisdiction over and awarding attorney’s fees when Linda’s petition failed to demand such fees so that she was not legally entitled to recover them. We cannot agree.

Although Linda’s petition for dissolution contained no such prayer, counsel for the respective parties agreed prior to the final hearing that the chancellor should reserve ruling on attorney’s fees on behalf of Linda and the final judgment expressly reserved ruling on attorney’s fees. We, therefore, find that the chancellor had jurisdiction to enter an order awarding reasonable attorney’s fees subsequent to the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. See Section 61.-16, Florida Statutes (1975) and Cf. *Frumkes v. Frumkes,*328 So.2d 34 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); *Church v. Church,*338 So.2d 544 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.
# Innovating compressor blade inspection 

/ Published April 30, 2018
PENTAGON, Va., *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Air Force Installations, Environment and Energy website.*
254 La. 515

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Chester STANLEY, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 49996.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 21, 1969.

In re: Chester Stanley, Jr. applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
**U.S.-USSR Bilateral Trade (88019)**
Disposition Comments 

Docket No: FAA-2016-4280 

Directorate ID: 2016-SW-008-AD 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

D These comments are in 

response to an SNPRM 

Next Step: DFRAN 0 SNPRM 

0 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received- If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required. 

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the 

previously published NP RM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revi siun. 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: applicability 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Jack Fannon 

What change to the AD action is requested? N/ A 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? N/ A 

Do we agree? Yes/No See below 

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: L,ist any 

changes to the AI) 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with 

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AI) 

If NO, we don't agree because 

OTHER: This Airworthiness Directive (AD) DOES affect Alaskan intrastate travel, BUT we do not 

feel this will affect Alaskan intrastate travel to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory 

distinction, as stated in the AD. The Intrastate Aviation in Alaska Act states that modifying 

regulations of the affected models in the AD must be considered if the AD would have a negative 

impact on transportation services to remotely located communities. We are not aware of any S-92 

models that are used for this purpose and therefor do not require any regulatory distinctions. 

Page 1 of2 
Signature Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action. 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Branch Manager 

e: fll~JVJr \,J;ll ct~ s 

6--6-16 

Page 2 of2 

Date 1 ·'
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Norris Leroy VESSELL v. Honorable Matthew BRANIFF, Judge.

No. 61546.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Norris Leroy Vessell applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied: A minute entry of January 17,1978 shows that the Loyola Law Clinic is appointed to represent the petitioner. In that regard, the application is moot. On the showing made, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.
**Prices Received and Paid Indexes (95917)**
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment, dated as
of November 6, 2015 (the “Amendment”), to Employment Agreement dated as of August 13, 2010 and effective as of July
1, 2010, as amended to date (collectively, the “Agreement”), is by and between WidePoint Corporation (the “Company”)
and Steve L. Komar (“Executive”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to
such terms in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire
to further amend the Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants and undertakings herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound do hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Section 2 of the Agreement
is amended to provide that the term of Executive’s employment under the Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2016.


 


2. Except as expressly
provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement remain unaltered and are in full force
and effect and are expressly hereby ratified and confirmed. The Agreement and this Amendment shall be read and construed as one
agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


	WIDEPOINT CORPORATION	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBIN	 	/s/ STEVE L. KOMAR
	Name:	James T. McCubbin	 	Steve L. Komar
	Title:	EVP and CFO	 	Individually
EXHIBIT
31.1.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer





I,
Christopher J. Ryan, certify that:





1.   I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Lakeland Industries,
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.





Date:
      April 17, 2008
            /s/ Christopher J.
      RyanChristopher
      J. RyanChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
254 La. 642

#### James E. McGONIGAL v. DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON PARISH, State of Louisiana, et al.

No. 50053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1969.

In re: James E. McGonigal applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Application denied as the return made by the district attorney shows that extradition proceedings have commenced.
#### Wyett NICHOLS et ux. v. Walter T. PIPES et al.

No. 61557.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: American Bank and Trust Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. 353 So.2d 1086.

Writ denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Degen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Nortech Systems Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Nortech Systems Incorporated.

|By:   |  | /s/MICHAEL J. DEGENMichael J. Degen Chief Executive
OfficerNortech Systems Incorporated | 
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: |  | March 30, 2004                                                                          | 

I,
Garry M. Anderly, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Nortech
Systems Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nortech
Systems Incorporated.

|By:   |  | /s/GARRY M. ANDERLYGarry M. Anderly Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting OfficerNortech Systems Incorporated | 
|----- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: |  | March 30, 2004                                                                                                               | 

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1258 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1258

   To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., in 
    Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2005

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., in 
    Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN LEWIS CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE.

    (a) Designation.--The building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., 
in Atlanta, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ``John Lewis 
Civil Rights Institute''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the John Lewis 
Civil Rights Institute.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1576 

To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation 

within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District or within the Medford 

Irrigation District, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2005 

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau 

of Reclamation within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation 

District or within the Medford Irrigation District, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EARLY REPAYMENT. 

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 213 of the 

5 Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), any 

6 landholder in Oregon within the Rogue River Valley Irri7 gation District or within the Medford Irrigation District 

8 may repay, at any time, the construction costs of the 
2 

S 1576 IS

1 project facilities allocated to a landholding within the dis2 trict in question. Upon discharge of the obligation for re3 payment of the construction costs allocated to that land4 holding in the district in question, such lands shall not 

5 be subject to the ownership and full-cost pricing limita6 tions of the Act of June 17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.), 

7 and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act, in8 cluding the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 

9 309aa et seq.). 

10 SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION. 

11 Upon the request of a landholder who has repaid the 

12 construction costs of the project facilities allocated to that 

13 landholder within the district, the Secretary of the Interior 

14 shall provide the certification provided for in subsection 

15 (b)(1) of section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 

16 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm(b)(1)). 

Æ
#### TRADERS & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. Raymond R. TILLMAN et al.

No. 60811.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Traders & General Ins. Co. applying for certiorari, or writ or review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 349 So.2d 1370.

Writ denied.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1613

AN ACT

To amend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999

to extend the termination date for mandatory price reporting.

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

2

S 1613 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MANDATORY PRICE REPORT2 ING.

3 Section 942 of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting

4 Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–78; 7 U.S.C. 1635 note)

5 is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2005’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘September 30, 2006’’.

Passed the Senate September 13, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1613

AN ACT

To amend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act

datory price reporting.of 1999 to extend the termination date for man-
**U.S. Fruit, Nut, and Berry Prodction (91015)**
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference
in Registration Statement No. 333-158753 of Phazar Corp on form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-158798 on form S-8 of Phazar
Corp. of our reports dated September 22, 2011, related to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Phazar Corp. as
of June 30, 2011, June 30, 2010 and May 31, 2010, and for the year ended June 30, 2011, one month period ended June 30, 2010 and
year ended May 31, 2010, which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Phazar Corp. for the year ended June 30,
2011.







WEAVER AND TIDWELL, L.L.P.



Fort Worth, Texas

September 22, 2011