alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Miguel Manuel Villalobos Jr., * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11-22-00007-CR * January 13, 2022

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has considered Miguel Manuel Villalobos Jr.’s application for writ 

of habeas corpus and concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the application for habeas corpus is dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION   I, Gunther Than, certify that:   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of View Systems, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 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)) 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 small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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.   Date: March 23, 2007 /s/ Gunther Than Gunther Than, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Image Sensing System, Inc.
(the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Aubrey,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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 operations of the Company.

| |                                       
| | --------------------------------------
| | /s/ Kenneth R. Aubrey                 
| |                                       
| | Kenneth R. Aubrey                     
| | President and Chief
 Executive Officer
| | March 23, 2010                        

55

---
# Supporting the forces in Arctic exercise

/ Published Oct. 1, 2019

Operating in an Arctic environment requires planning and preparation for the harsh conditions, extreme cold temperatures and often limited resources. 

During the 2019 Arctic Expeditionary Capabilities Exercise in the Aleutian Islands, South Central Alaska and Southern California, Sept. 15-24, fuel quality assurance and technical support were the focus for Defense Logistics Agency Energy personnel. 

DLA Energy quality assurance representatives were in Seward and Adak, Alaska, supporting military fueling operations. Joe LaRose provided quality oversight during a bunkering operation to refuel the amphibious dock landing ship USS Comstock (LSD 45). Brian Reed provided technical expertise and assistance as Marines additized commercial jet fuel in the field using their mobile fuel additization system.

“It was a good learning experience for everyone involved,” Reed said. “The Marines took away lessons learned and ways to improve the use of the additization system and it was valuable to learn how they do tactical fuel operations.” 

Additionally, as part of the exercise, DLA Energy Americas West Navy Cmdr. Michael Wilson and Daniel Schmidt observed the USS Petersburg (T-AOT-9101) transfer bulk liquid over-the-shore into a bladder farm built on Imperial Beach, California, using the Offshore Petroleum Distribution System. 

“OPDS is a critical asset for contingency and Defense Support of Civil Authorities activities,” Wilson said. “This exercise provided realistic, relevant training to develop a more effective amphibious force as a critical enabler to national, state and local agencies.”  

About 3,000 Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel participated in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command exercise which tests joint expeditionary force logistical transfer capabilities in the Arctic environment. Several strategic capabilities were tested during the AECE to increase the ability participants to plan, communicate and conduct complex amphibious and expeditionary combat support operations. These same skills are critical for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. 

“The operation was a success for us,” said Air Force Maj. Marcus McWilliams, DLA Energy Americas North commander. “We assisted in troubleshooting problems as they arose and provided support in an expeditionary environment to meet Warfighter needs.”

The June 2019 Department of Defense Arctic Strategy outlines DoD’s strategic approach for protecting U.S. national security interests in the Arctic amongst strategic competition. DoD’s desired end-state for the Arctic is a secure and stable region in which U.S. national security interests are safeguarded, the U.S. homeland is defended, and nations work cooperatively to address shared challenges, the document states.
Termination of The FINOVA Group Severance Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 TERMINATION OF THE FINOVA GROUP SEVERANCE TRUST AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Finova Group, Inc. (the
“Grantor”) established the FINOVA Severance Trust Agreement (the “Trust”) effective November 1, 2003; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Exhibit D of the Trust, the undersigned is an authorized signatory on behalf of the Grantor; and 
 WHEREAS,
the terms of the Trust provide that upon satisfaction of all Severance Obligations, the Grantor shall be entitled to receive all Trust Assets remaining in the Trust, upon presentation to the Trustee of an Affidavit of the Plan Administrator stating
that all Beneficiaries claims to Severance Obligations have been satisfied or eliminated; and 
 WHEREAS, the Grantor has determined to cause
any remaining Severance Obligations to be satisfied by causing any remaining beneficiaries who remain employed by Grantor to receive payment of any Severance Obligations in advance of such beneficiaries future termination date, provided that such
amounts shall be paid following January 1, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company has been advised by counsel that the above described
actions will be permissible under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), provided the Company causes any Severance Obligations to be following January 1, 2008; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Grantor shall cause all remaining employees eligible to receive any Severance Obligations as soon as practicable
following January 1, 2008; and 
 RESOLVED, that the Grantor shall take all actions necessary to cause the Trust to be terminated on the
earliest date following payment of all Beneficiaries thereunder; 
 RESOLVED, that the Plan Administrator and such other proper personnel, as
appropriate, be, and hereby are, authorized to cause to be executed as may be required under the Trust such certificates, powers of attorney, affidavits, agreements, assignments, documents, releases, and instruments as are required in connection
with the termination of the Trust and the receipt by the Grantor of any reversionary interest in accordance with Section 10 of the Trust. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this written consent as of this 12th day of November, 2007. 
  

			
	THE FINOVA GROUP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Thomas E. Mara
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer


  

 2
#### Jack W. GIACALONE, Appellant, v. Austin BERNSTEIN, Appellee.

No. 76-1866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 9, 1977.

Williams, Salomon, Kanner & Damian and Alan H. Lubitz, Miami, for appellant.

Aronovitz & Weksler and Anne-Lise Gus-tafson, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

In an action to recover on a promissory note, the defendant [James E. Giacalone] appeals from a summary final judgment rendered against him in favor of the plaintiff who was the payee on the note [Austin Bernstein], The defendant contends that he is not individually liable on the note because he signed the note with the word “by” preceding his name and the extrinsic evidence in the cause presents a genuine issue as to whether he signed the note in a representative capacity on behalf of a corporation. We cannot agree and affirm.

The law is clear under the Uniform Commercial Code that “[a]n authorized representative who signs his own name to an instrument [i]s personally obligated if the instrument neither names the person represented nor shows that the representative signed in a representative capacity.” Section 673.403(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the maker of a negotiable instrument signed in a representative capacity and is therefore not personally obligated on the note “if the instrument names the person represented but does not show that the representative signed in a representative capacity, or if the instrument does not name the person represented but does show that the person signed in a representative capacity.” Section 673.403(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975).

In the instant case, the defendant signed the promissory note in an individual capacity as a maker and is personally obli*680gated thereon. The note neither names the person represented nor shows that the defendant signed in a representative capacity. The word “by” preceding the defendant’s signature on the note, without more on the face of the note, does not show that the defendant signed in a representative capacity. *Dynamic Homes, Inc. v. Rogers,*331 So.2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Imperial Trading Co. v. Crescent City Restaurants, Inc.,*230 So.2d 748 (La.App.1970). The defendant’s extrinsic evidence was therefore inadmissible to show that he signed as a representative for a corporation. Summary judgment was properly entered on the note against the defendant.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Amos Eiran, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Tissera, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended October 31, 2003 (the "Report") 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

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

Dated: January 18, 2005

                                                           By: /s/Amos Eiran
                                                               ----------------
                                                           Name: Amos Eiran
                                                           Title: Acting Chief
                                                           Executive Officer
#### Sammie Lee BROWN v. NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY and American Motorist Insurance Company.

No. 8735.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1978.

*427Orlando G. Bendana, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Craig R. Nelson, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and DU-PLANTIER, JJ.

DUPLANTIER, Judge.

During exploratory surgery, two small nodules were removed from one of plaintiff’s lungs. Both developed as a result of his long term exposure to silica and asbestos during his 11 years of employment at defendant’s plant.

The surgery was successful, and plaintiff returned to his regular employment within a few weeks. Except for this postoperative period, plaintiff missed no time from work. Medical expenses and workmen’s compensation benefits during the period of plaintiff’s absence from work were paid by his employer.

Plaintiff sued for additional workmen’s compensation benefits, contending primarily that, even though he is not disabled from performing his occupation, the occupational disease which he developed as a result of his employment left him with a serious permanent impairment of a physical function, entitling him to benefits under R.S. 23:1221(4)(p).

Plaintiff’s contention is that even though an employee is not occupationally disabled, “where the usefulness of a physical function is seriously permanently impaired”1 as a result of an occupational disease, the employee is entitled to recover “schedule” benefits under R.S. 23:1221(4)(p), “the same as if said employee received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.” (R.S. 23:1031.1)2

The district court, in dismissing plaintiff’s suit without prejudice, obviously concluded that there was no proof that plaintiff at the time of trial was either occupationally disabled or had a serious permanent impairment of a physical function. The evidence supports this conclusion. Plaintiff’s recov*428ery was complete, with virtually no impairment of physical function.3

*AFFIRMED.*

. R.S. 23:1221(4)(p).

. See *LaCoste v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.,*250 La. 43, 193 So.2d 779 (1967); *Chivoletto v.*
        *428
        *Johns-Manville Products Corp.,*La., 330 So.2d 295 (1976).

. Therefore, we do not consider whether R.S. 23:1031.1, in granting benefits to “every employee who is *disabled*because of the contraction of an occupational disease” (emphasis added) restricts recovery to employees who are either partially or totally disabled from performing the duties of their former employment, or whether that use of the term “disabled” includes a serious impairment of a physical function which does not prevent the claimant from working at his former job and which would entitle him to “schedule” benefits if the impairment were produced by accident rather than disease.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6242

FRANKLIN W. DAVIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ROANOKE PUBLIC DEFENDERS; JUDGE CARSON; CRYSTAL SMITH, Commonwealth ’ s Attorney , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. ( 7:22

- cv - 00678

- JPJ

- PMS )

Submitted : June 22, 2023 Decided: June 27, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Franklin W. Davis , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6242 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Franklin W. Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis ’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the d istrict court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6242 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22472]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10 a.m. on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, to consider the following matters:
    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' meetings.
    Reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the 
Board of Directors.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Investment Policy for Liquidation 
Funds Managed by the FDIC.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Part 369--Prohibition Against Use of 
Interstate Branches Primarily for Deposit Production.

DISCUSSION AGENDA: Memorandum and resolution re: Part 362--Activities 
and Investments of Insured State Banks.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call (202) 416-2449 (Voice); (202) 416-
2004 (TTY), to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Ms. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-3812.

    Dated: August 19, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22472 Filed 8-20-97; 10:49 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23436]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Meetings of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of additional meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the 
following meetings of the Humanities Panel will be held at the Old Post 
Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy E. Weiss, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, D.C. 20506; telephone (202) 
606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on 
this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal 
on (202) 606-8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed meetings are for the purpose of 
panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications 
for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and 
the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of 
information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. 
Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely 
to disclose: (1) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information 
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; or (2) 
information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant 
to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to 
Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have 
determined that this meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to 
subsections (c)(4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States 
Code.
    1. Date: September 29, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Room: 315.
    Program: This meeting will review applications for Education 
Development and Demonstration in Focus Grants I, submitted to the 
Division of Research and Education for projects at the September 15, 
1997 deadline.

    2. Date: September 30, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Room: 315.
    Program: This meeting will review applications for Education 
Development and Demonstration in Focus Grants I, submitted to the 
Division of Research and Education for projects at the September 15, 
1997 deadline.
Nancy E. Weiss,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-23436 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-M