alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert W. COX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 7, 1978.

*958Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before HAVERPIELD, C. J., KEHOE, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Cox appeals an order revoking his probation and urges as reversible error the denial of his motion for continuance because defense counsel was not afforded adequate time to prepare the case and confer with him in derogation of his right to effective assistance of counsel. We do not agree.

Cox was convicted for issuing worthless checks and receiving stolen property, and was placed on four years probation. An affidavit of violation of probation was filed against him for having committed burglary and grand larceny. He was adjudicated indigent and an assistant public defender (Mr. Smith) was appointed. Eight days later at the revocation hearing another assistant public defender (Mr. Marvin) appeared on behalf of Cox and moved for a continuance because the previous day Smith had asked him to handle the hearing and he (Marvin) had just met Cox. The prosecution objected since all the witnesses had been subpoenaed to appear. The court denied the motion for continuance and at the conclusion of the hearing, revoked Cox’s probation. This appeal followed.

Cox contends that a change of counsel one day prior to trial necessitates the granting of a motion for continuance because new counsel is unprepared for trial. We cannot agree.

First, there is no specified time period which establishes as a matter of law a lack of preparation on the part of counsel so as to mandate a continuance. See *Berriel v. State,*233 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Second, the record reflects that a public defender, Mr. Smith, was appointed eight days prior to the revocation hearing and one day prior to trial another public defender, Mr. Marvin, agreed to handle this case for his associate. Mr. Smith and Mr. Marvin being from the same office or law firm, it cannot be said that there was a change of counsel in the sense that new counsel from a different office or firm had been substituted. See *Roberts v. State,*345 So.2d 837 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) and *Smith v. State,*48 Fla. 307, 37 So. 573 (1904). Last, we find that Marvin adequately represented Cox at the hearing and, thus, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for continuance. See *Smith, supra; Durcan*v. *State,*350 So.2d 525 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Griffin*v. *State,*350 So.2d 567 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Mobley v. State,*327 So.2d 900 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00262

- CV
Maria G. Rodriguez a/k/a Maria G. Casarez and Ismael Casarez Sr. v. Deut sche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004

- 2, Asset Back e d Certificates, Series 2004

- 2
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- CCL

- 01102

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of th e tria l court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. C osts of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s , Maria G. Rodriguez a/k/a Maria G. Casarez and Ismael Casarez S r. and Marte C. Guillen, as sure ty on the supers e deas bond. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 2 , 2020
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comarco, Inc., I, Daniel R. Lutz, Chief Financial Officer of Comarco, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel R. Lutz     
|                    |  |  |  | Daniel R. Lutz         
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the
accompanying report on Form 10-Q. A signed original copy 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.
EXHIBIT 4.1




















FOR VALUE RECEIVED,                                                                         hereby sell, assign and transfer unto







	
 


	
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE)


	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 	
Shares


	
of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

	 
	 	 
	 	
Attorney


	
to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

	 
	 	 
	 	 	 








	
Dated

	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. The signature of the person executing this power must be guaranteed by an Eligible Credit Union, or a Savings Association participating in a Medallion program approved by the Securities Transfer Association, Inc.


	 	 	 	 








Signature(s) Guaranteed

















	 	
The signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (banks, stockbrokers, savings and loan associations and credit unions with membership in an approved signature guarantee medallion program), pursuant to S.E.C. Rule 17Ad-15.

	 








KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, MUTILATED OR DESTROYED THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.







THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH SHAREHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS, A SUMMARY OF THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OF THE CORPORATION AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS, AND THE VARIATIONS IN RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS DETERMINED FOR EACH SERIES, WHICH ARE FIXED BY THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE CORPORATION, AS AMENDED, AND THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DETERMINE VARIATIONS FOR FUTURE SERIES. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY REQUIRE THE OWNER OF A LOST OR DESTROYED STOCK CERTIFICATE, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, TO GIVE THE CORPORATION A BOND TO INDEMNIFY IT AND ITS TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS AGAINST ANY CLAIM THAT MAY BE MADE AGAINST THEM ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63094-63098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30986]



[[Page 63094]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-12]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Assistance Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-12, with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, Section 620C(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
and sensitivity of technology pages.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 63095]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.012



[[Page 63096]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.013



[[Page 63097]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.014



[[Page 63098]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.015



[FR Doc. 97-30986 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
#### William J. KANE, Appellant, v. CENTRAL BANK OF PALM BEACH COUNTY et al., Appellees.

No. 70-291.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 5, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-1985 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-214-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement 3.0 $ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 92 $23,460.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $23,460

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Exhibit 99.1
 
 GOLUB CAPITAL BDC, INC.
 
 PRIVACY POLICY
 
 To Golub Capital BDC, Inc. Investors:
 
 We take precautions to maintain the privacy of personal information concerning our investors. These precautions include the adoption of certain procedures designed to maintain and secure your nonpublic personal information from inappropriate disclosure to unaffiliated third parties. We are sending this notice in accordance with applicable federal regulations. This notice applies to investors in Golub Capital BDC, Inc. (the “Company”).
 
 What kind of personal information do we have about you and where did we get it?
 
 We collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources:
 
 •Information we may receive from you in subscription agreements or other related documents or forms; and •Information about your transactions with our affiliates and us. 
 How do we protect your personal information?
 
 We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about our investors or former investors to anyone, except as permitted by law.
 
 We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees and agents of GC Advisors LLC, its affiliates and unaffiliated third party service providers (which may include a custodian, transfer agent or financial printer) who need to know that information in order to provide services to you or to the Company. In that regard, we note that we maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to safeguard your nonpublic personal information and which we believe is adequate to prevent unauthorized disclosure of such information.
 
 What do we do with personal information about our former investors?
 
 If an investor decides to no longer do business with us, we will continue to follow this privacy policy with respect to the information we have in our possession about such investor and his/her account.
 
 If you have any questions concerning our privacy policies, please contact our Chief Financial Officer, Ross Teune, at (312) 284-0111.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1164

_____________________________
K ENNETH D AVID C ROMARTIE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Co urt for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

. September 26, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , B ILBREY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
EX-32.1

----

**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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bio-Carbon SystemsInternational Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Ryan Bignucolo, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

| 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | By:    |   /s/ Ryan  Bignucolo |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |   |   Ryan Bignucolo      |
|   |   |   President           |

 

Dated:     April15, 2011

 

 

----
#### I. C. SALES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF COCOA BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, and Noel A. Neal, Chief, License Department, Appellees.

No. 69-474.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 11, 1970.

George A. Shahood and A. J. Ryan, Jr., Dania, for appellant.

William E. Weller, of Rose & Weller, Cocoa Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on apeal. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no harmful error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and McCAIN, JJ., and ADAMS, ALTO (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Restated for merger accounted as pooling of interests. Primary EPS represents 
basic while fully diluted represents dilutive under new SFAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999             JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998             APR-04-1997
<CASH>                                          50,562                  36,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,439                  71,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,597                   1,301
<INVENTORY>                                     65,928                  52,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               216,318                 172,015
<PP&E>                                         120,539                  94,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,212                  45,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 325,145                 248,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,250                  77,137
<BONDS>                                         49,040                  47,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        80,540                  59,969
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,105                  62,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   325,145                 248,326
<SALES>                                        147,178                 114,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,178                 114,463
<CGS>                                          108,957                  84,907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,957                  84,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,911                  18,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,087                   1,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,903                  10,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,667                   3,294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,236                   7,076
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                 (2,062)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,236                   5,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08                    0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08                    0.13
               

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1





LAKE & ASSOCIATES, CPA’s LLC





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the use, in the report on Form 10-K of Raj Ventures, Inc. (A Development Stage Company), of our report dated March 21, 2011 on our audit of the financial statements of Raj Ventures, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statement of operations, shareholders’ equity/(deficit) and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2010, for the period from October 14, 2009 (inception) to December 31, 2009 and cumulative from October 14, 2009 (inception) through December 31, 2010. We also consent to the reference to us under the caption “Experts.”





/s/Lake & Associates, CPA’s LLC





Lake & Associates, CPA’s LLC


Schaumburg, Illinois


March 25, 2011
#### GRETNA GLASS & MIRROR WORKS, INC. v. CRESCENT CITY BAPTIST CHURCH and Realty Resources, Inc.

No. 8834.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 14, 1978.

*837Jacob L. Karno, Metairie, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

John C. Werhan, Metairie, for defendants-appellants.

. Before STOULIG, BEER and GAUDIN, JJ.

GAUDIN, Judge.

Petitioner, Gretna Glass & Mirror Works, Inc., brought this action against the Crescent City Baptist Church and Realty Resources, Inc. to enforce a materialman’s lien.

Following an adverse judgment in the district court, defendants lodged this appeal.

The facts, generally not in dispute except in only one significant part, are these:

The Crescent City Baptist Church contracted with Realty Resources, Inc., whereby Realty Resources was to construct a building for the Crescent City Baptist Church. Gary P. Daigle, representing Realty Resources, called on Edward M. Kass, president of Gretna Glass, and asked for a bid on eighty-eight (88) windows. Mr. Kass submitted an oral bid, which was accepted.

Gretna Glass assembled the windows in aluminum frames and delivered them to the construction site. Subsequently, the contractor refused to accept and use the windows as the frames were of aluminum and not steel, and did not meet building code standards.

The prime issue for adjudication was whether the plans and specifications given to Mr. Kass by Mr. Daigle called for aluminum windows.

At the trial, several sets of plans and specifications were produced, including one set that clearly specified aluminum windows. Mr. Kass testified that this was the set presented to him by Mr. Daigle, while Mr. Daigle said that another set had been used.

The trial judge resolved this factual dispute in Gretna Glass’ favor, and we find no manifest error.

Defendants further contend that a person of Mr. Kass’ experience should have realized that aluminum windows would not meet building code requirements.

However, the testimony showed Mr. Kass’ expertise to be in the field of glass windows. He had no special knowledge with regard to the fire-resisting differences between aluminum and steel, and he had no unusual awareness of building code specifications.

If the plans and specifications given to Mr. Kass were erroneous, and obviously they were, he was under no duty to check further. The law imposes no such duty even on an experienced contractor receiving plans from an owner. See *LeBreton*v. *Brown,*La.App., 260 So.2d 767; *Sisters of the Good Shepherd v. Quinn Const. Co.,*La.App., 225 So.2d 225; *Pittman Construction Co. v. City of New Orleans,*La.App., 178 So.2d 312; and also LSA-R.S. 9:2771.

*838When the contractor learned that aluminum windows couldn’t be used, he directed Gretna Glass to take them back.

The trial judge awarded the amount of the verbal contract, minus a salvage value.

We affirm.

*AFFIRMED.*