alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director of Trump
Entertainment Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which is about to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 its Annual Report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006, hereby constitutes and appoints Dale R. Black as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to sign such Annual Report and to file such Annual Report and the exhibits thereto and any and all documents and amendments in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any national exchange or self regulatory agency and to do and perform any and all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done in connection with the foregoing as fully as he
might or could do in person hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated: February 21, 2007



/s/ Donald J. Trump Donald J.
Trump Chairman of the Board/s/ James B. Perry James B.
Perry Director/s/ Wallace B. Askins Wallace B.
Askins Director/s/ Edward H. DAlelio Edward H.
DAlelio Director/s/ James J. Florio James J.
Florio Director/s/ Cezar M. Froelich Cezar M.
Froelich Director/s/ Morton E. Handel Morton E.
Handel Director/s/ Michael A. Kramer Michael A.
Kramer Director/s/ Don M. Thomas Don M.
Thomas Director
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 17, 2019

NO. 03-19-00053-CV

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant

v.

City of Carrollton, Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 10, 2019. Appellant has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. 

Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### FORT LAUDERDALE MULTIPLE SELLING SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 69-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
March 27, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOURDAN FLOWERS JUNIOR, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00184-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### Profile surveys in Bear River basin, Idaho

By: Robert Bradford Marshall

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp350

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate- 1**                            (1582 pdf)                        
  - **Plate- 1**                            (1420 pdf)                        
  - **Plate- 1**                            (1741 pdf)                        
  - **Plate- 1**                            (1126 pdf)                        
  - **Plate- 1**                            (1269 pdf)                        
  - **Plate- 1**                            (1069 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25345]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (97-138)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: September 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yvonne Kellogg, Dryden Flight Research Center, Mail Stop D-4839A, P.O. 
Box 273, Edwards, CA 93523-0273, telephone (805) 258-3720.
    NASA Case No. DRC-096-007: Emergency Control Aircraft System Using 
Thrust Modulation;
    NASA Case No. DRC-097-021: Emergency Multiengine Aircraft System 
for Lateral Control Using Differential Thrust Control of Wing Engines.

    Dated: September 17, 1997.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-25345 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
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



In connection with the Annual Report of AirNet Communications Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn A. Ehley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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 result of operations of
the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    GLENN A.
EHLEY                               
|Glenn A. Ehley Chief Executive Officer March 8, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LINDA SMITH,

APPELLANT,

V.

JOHN BURT,

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00317-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

APPELLEE.

§

(TC# 89-11455)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to clarify and 

enforce, including the portion of the order which determined that Appellee has overpaid Appellant 

in the amount of $22,080.39 as of April 3, 2014, and render judgment clarifying the divorce decree 

as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that Linda Burt n/k/a Linda Smith shall have judgment 

against and recover from John Burt, $391.00 of the gross present and future 

military retirement benefits received by John Burt each month beginning October 

31, 1990, together with 50% of any and all cost-of-living-related increases to 

which John Burt shall become entitled for the period beginning October 31, 1990 

and ending on the death of John Burt. Linda Burt n/k/a Linda Smith is entitled to 

receive 50% of the accumulated cost-of-living-allowances to which John Burt 

becomes entitled to receive beginning October 31, 1990 and ending on the death 

of John Burt.
2

It is further ordered that the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings 

consistent with this Court’s opinion, including the entry of an order on Appellant’s motion to 

enforce. We further order that Appellant recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which 

let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., Not Participating
Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law Member of the Bar, Texas and Florida 

By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization JSandberg@pamlaw.com

October 13, 2015 

VIA E-FILING

Ms. Antonette Regor, Court Reporter 

68th Judicial District Court 

600 Commerce St., Texas 75201 

Attention: Appellate Record

Re: Branch Banking and Trust Company v. James C. Morris 

Appellate Docket No. 05-15-01249-CV; 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-12220;

 

Dear Ms. Regor: 

 I am requesting that you prepare and file the Reporter’s Record in the Fifth 

District Court of Appeals regarding this matter. Appellant is prepared to pay the fee when 

we are notified of the amount due. Please include all documents and exhibits offered by 

the parties at the following hearings and trial: 

 July 1, 2013 hearing 

March 9, 2015 hearing

April 21, 205 jury trial

October 5, 2015 hearing

 Thank you for your assistance. 

 Sincerely, 

 /s/ Jeffrey R. Sandberg

 Jeffrey R. Sandberg 

 Direct: (214) 242-6454 

 jsandberg@pamlaw.com 

ACCEPTED

05-15-01249-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

10/13/2015 2:16:30 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 10/13/2015 2:16:30 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
JRS

cc via e-filing and facsimile: Tim Woods, Esq.

cc via e-filing: Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeals 

I:\15035\Appeal\Clerk.Request for Reporter's Record.151013.doc
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25292]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-528-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

September 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 15, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission 
Company (``NGT'') tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be 
effective November 1, 1997:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1
Second Revised Sheet No. 34
First Revised Sheet No. 161
Third Revised Sheet No. 162
Third Revised Sheet No. 167
Second Revised Sheet No. 167A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 169
Third Revised Sheet No. 169A
Third Revised Sheet No. 172
Second Revised Sheet No. 196A
Third Revised Sheet No. 205
Third Revised Sheet No. 233A

    NGT states that the tariff sheets are being filed to correct 
administrative errors which occurred during its numerous GISB filings, 
as well as to make minor housekeeping changes.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest the proposed tariff 
sheets should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or as provided in Section 
154.210 of the Commission's regulations. The protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestant parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25292 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 5120

_____________________________
J ERRY M EANS ,
Petitioner
,

v.

M ARK S. I NCH , Secretary, Florida Department o f Corrections
, Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

October 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

W OLF , B.L. T HOMAS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jerry Means
, pro se, P etitioner

. No appearance for Respondent

.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D A R C Y IR A T H IG P E N , A K A L i tt l e D ee , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 50502 D. C . No . 2 : 9 2 - c r - 0 0 7 4 9 - S VW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a r c yI r aT hi gpe n appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f oras e nt e nc e r e duc t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) ba s e d on the r e tr oa c t i ve 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE H / Res ea r ch 08- 50502 2 appl i c a t i on of

A m e ndm e nt706 t o the S e nt e nc e G ui de l i ne s pr ovi s i ons gove rni ng c r a c kc o c a i n e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. T hi gp en cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y denyi ng hi s m ot i on for a s e n te n c e r e du c tio n u n d e rA m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 b e c au s e h is s e n te n c e w a s b a s e d , in p a rt, o n as e n te n c in g r a n g e c a lc u la te du n d e rth e D ru g Q u a n tityT ab le in U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1. 1. T hi s c on t ent i on fa i l s bec ause T hi gp en qu al i fi ed as a c ar ee r off ender unde rU . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1. B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d T hi gpe n ba s e d on a se nt enci ng rang e c al cul at ed un der § 4B 1. 1, he i s notel i gi bl e f or a s ent ence r e du c tio n u n d e rA m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 . Se e U ni te d States v . W

es s on , 583 F . 3d 728, 731 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 10.3

                          [Teltronics, Inc. letterhead]


November 13, 2001


Intelliworxx, Inc.
2065 Cantu Court
Sarasota, FL  34232

Via facsimile: (941) 379-0302

Re: Teltronics v. Kevin Rogers et al.

Gentlemen:

Teltronics, Inc. ("Teltronics"), Intelliworxx, Inc. ("Intelliworxx") and other
parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement and certain other documents
pertaining to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 98-CIV-1392-T-23B (the
"Settlement"). Pursuant to the Settlement, Intelliworxx delivered to Teltronics,
among other things, its promissory note dated August 1, 2001 in the principal
amount of $700,000 and a promissory note in the principal amount of $52,500 (the
"Notes"). Intelliworxx has not made the payments due under the Notes on
September 1, 2001 and October 1, 2001 (the Delinquent Payments") and has advised
Teltronics that it does not currently have sufficient available funds to make
the Delinquent Payments. Accordingly, Intelliworxx is currently in default under
the Notes. Teltronics has, by letter dated October 12, 2001, agreed to forbear
from certain rights under the Notes, and is willing to continue such forbearance
upon the terms set forth in this letter.

The purpose of this letter is to set forth the revised mutual understanding of
Teltronics and Intelliworxx as to payment by Intelliworxx of the Delinquent
Payments and the agreement of Teltronics to forebear from exercising certain
rights granted to it under the Notes.

Intelliworxx agrees that (i) beginning with the payment due on December 1, 2001
and for the remaining term of the Notes, it will make all payments according to
the terms set forth in the Notes; and (ii) no later than April 15, 2002, it will
make the entire Delinquent Payments to Teltronics.

Teltronics agrees that, until April 15, 2002, but only for so long as
Intelliworxx fulfills all its obligations as set forth in the preceding
paragraph, Teltronics will not exercise the rights granted to it upon an Event
of Default as defined in Section 6(a) of the Notes. Nothing contained in this
letter shall be interpreted to constitute a waiver by Teltronics of any rights
it may have upon an Event of Default as defined in Section 6(b) and Section 6(c)
of the Notes.

The forbearance granted by Teltronics in this letter shall expire on the earlier
of (i) April 15, 2002 or (ii) the date on which Intelliworxx has made the
Delinquent Payments.

If this letter accurately sets forth the understanding of Intelliworxx as to the
Delinquent Payments, please acknowledge such by signing in the space provided
below and returning the copy to me.

                                          TELTRONICS, INC.



                                          By: /s/ Ewen R. Cameron
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Ewen R. Cameron, President


Agreed and accepted this 13th day of
November, 2001

INTELLIWORXX, INC.



By: /s/ Christopher J. Floyd
----------------------------------------
Christopher J. Floyd, CFO
Exhibit  32.2
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, BROOKE
STYBA, Principal Accounting Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




         Dated: August 13, 2003               /s/  Brooke Styba
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Its: Principal Accounting Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.













                                       25
#### Elijah ROUNDTREE and John David, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-960.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 2, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Lewis Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were informed against, charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, grand larceny. Upon trial they were found and adjudged guilty of attempt thereof, for which each was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, with credit for certain jail time served.

On this appeal therefrom the appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgments rendered against them. The information charged breaking and entering a building (at a given address) alleged to be the property of Miami Purveyors, Inc., a corporation. Appellants contend the latter allegation is not supported by the evidence. We find no merit in that contention. The general manager of the company testified on that point without objection. See Harper v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 512. We reject also the further contention of the appellants that there was no sufficient showing by the state regarding property in the building, upon which to support a finding of intent to commit grand larceny. It was disclosed in the evidence that a wholesale meat business was conducted on the prem*141ises, and that it contained merchandise of the company valued in excess of $75,000. See Dohry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 603.

Affirmed.