alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary Catherine LOURCEY, Appellant, v. Joseph Justin LOURCEY, Appellee.

No. P-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 30, 1971.

*26Barry L. Zisser, Jacksonville, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, modifying a final judgment by reducing the sums of money for support of minor children as originally stipulated to and ordered in the final decree.

The defendant was in arrears in payment of alimony and child support monies, and so found by the trial court. The trial court also found the defendant not to be in contempt of court, but did, upon motion for defendant, modify the final decree so as to reduce the child support from $400.00 per month to $300.00 per month. This motion was orally moved by the defendant.

From this order, plaintiff enters this interlocutory appeal.

The defendant has not filed a brief, although plaintiff has perfected her appeal, including a brief.

This case falls squarely before the ruling of the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal in the following cases, to wit: Taylor v. Taylor, 143 So.2d 516 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1962) and Goff v. Goff, 151 So.2d 294 (Fla.App.3rd, 1963), wherein both courts held that the chancellor was without jurisdiction to summarily change child support provisions of a divorce decree, which had becomé final where no pleading had been filed directed to modification of decree. The oral motion made by the defendant does not satisfy the requirement that a pleading is necessary.

Said order appealed from is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings, not in conflict herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOVANA VIANEY NOLASCOVILLACRE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72209

Agency No. A029-561-192

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 11, 2013** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Yovana Vianey Nolasco-Villacre, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have

FILED

FEB 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72209

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying

Nolasco-Villacre’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over ten years

after her order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to

reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and

Nolasco-Villacre failed to establish that she qualified for equitable tolling of the

filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011)

(equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that she was prevented

from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in

discovering such circumstances); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8254-8255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 United States Code Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 
the following meeting:

    Name of Committee: Ad Hoc Smell, Taste and Touch and 
Chemosensory Disorders Subcommittee of the National Deafness and 
Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.
    Date: April 2, 1997.
    Time: 1-4 pm.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31C, Conference 
Room 9, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, (telephone 
conference call).
    Contact Person: Mr. Baldwin Wong, Program Analyst, NIDCD/PPHRB, 
31 Center Drive, MSC 2320, Room 3C-31, Bethesda, MD 20892-2320, 
(301) 496-7243.
    Purpose: To discuss changes in the scientific field of smell, 
taste and touch and chemosensory disorders since the Research Plan 
was written, compare the research portfolio of the Institute with 
the priorities in the Research Plan to determine areas of emphasis 
and levels of activity, and identify gaps and suggest new 
initiatives in preparation for the updating of the smell, taste and 
touch and chemosensory disorders section of the Research Plan.

    Attendance by the public will be limited to the space available. 
A summary of the Subcommittee's meeting and a roster of members may 
be obtained from Mr. Wong, upon request.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Mr. Wong in advance of the meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173, 
Biological Research

[[Page 8255]]

Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders.)

    Dated: February 18, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-4481 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4781]


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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting of the Presidential 
Search Committee of the Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: The Presidential Search Committee of the Legal Services 
Corporation Board of Directors will meet by teleconference on February 
27, 1997, at 10:30 a.m. EST.

STATUS OF MEETING: Open.

LOCATION: Members of the Committee and directors wishing to 
participate, as well as members of the Corporation's staff and the 
public, will be able to hear and participate in the meeting by means of 
telephonic conferencing equipment set up for this purpose in the 
Corporation's Conference Room, on the 11th floor of 750 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Approval of agenda.
    2. Formulation and adoption of process to govern the committee's 
remaining functions, including but not necessarily limited to 
interviewing of candidates and development of recommendation(s) to make 
to the full board.
    3. Other business, including public comment and scheduling of the 
Committee's next meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel & 
Secretary of the Corporation, (202) 336-8810.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Barbara Asante, at (202) 336-8800.

    Dated: February 21, 1997.
Victor M. Fortuno,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-4781 Filed 2-21-97; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906
CERTIFICATION

In
accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief
Financial Officer of Registrant hereby certifies to his knowledge that this annual report
of Registrant on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.

|Date:
March 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/
R. Brent Lenczycki, CPA
      R. Brent
Lenczycki, CPA 
                                                                       Vice President and 
                                                                       Chief Financial
Officer 
                                                                              (Principal
Financial and 
                                                                       Accounting Officer)
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement 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 Bradley
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished 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-K or as a separate
disclosure document.
rTin~n~fi\~ ßL 

~ .~ ~="i ~ ~ "'I ~ ¡! M itÏ! \¡df ~ d ~¿, tl D ~¡/ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 9327 

) 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR A
 

COURT ORDER ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO
 

REVIEW THE DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS GILLESPIE
 

I. 

On October 7,2009, Respondent submitted its Motion for a Cour Order Allowing 

Respondent to Review the Declaration of Douglas Gilespie ("Motion for Review"). 

Complaint Counsel submitted its opposition on October 8, 2009. In addition, Exide 

Technologies, Inc. ("Exide") submitted an opposition on October 9,2009 and a motion 

seeking in camera treatment for the Gilespie Declaration. The in camera treatment 

motion is pending. For the reasons set fort below, the Respondent's Motion for Review 

is DENIED. 

II. 

Douglas Gilespie, a senior executive with Exide, provided a declaration 

("Gilespie Declaration") for Complaint Counsel which Complaint Counsel submitted 

with its Response to Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record. The 

Gilespie Declaration was labeled as "In Camera" and "Confidential Pusuant to 

Protective Order" in Complaint Counsel's filng. Counsel for Respondent seeks to 

disclose the Gilespie Declaration to employees of Respondent. 

By Order dated October 2,2009, Respondent was ordered to file a reply in 

support of its Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record and to respond to the issues 

raised by Complaint Counsel's Response, which included the Gilespie Declaration. 

Respondent argues that, in order to provide a comprehensive reply, it needs to be able to 

disclose the Gilespie Declaration to Polypore employees. Complaint Counsel asserts 

that it is not necessary for Respondent's counsel to provide the Gilespie Declaration to 

Polypore executives to elicit responses to the facts stated in the Gilespie Declaration. By 

Order dated October 15, 2009, Respondent's Second Motion to Reopen the Hearing 

Record was granted. Accordingly, the basis raised by Respondent for disclosure is moot. 

Moreover, the information contained in the Gilespie Declaration relates to 

-i 
negotiations between Exide and Daramic and reveals confidential information that is 

subject to the Protective Order entered in this case on October 23, 2008. Under the terms 

of the Protective Order, confidential inormation submitted by a third party during the 

course of proceedings shall not be disclosed to employees of Respondent. Protective 

Order, lj 9. 

III. 

Respondent has failed to provide sufficient bases to require modification of the 

Protective Order to allow the disclosure of confidential information to Respondent's 

employees. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion is DENIED. 

ORDERED: ~t:ha~ 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: October 19,2009 

2
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7365 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to grants for buses 

and bus facilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to 

grants for buses and bus facilities, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Green Buses for Every 

5 Community Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOW INCOME COMMUNITY GRANTS. 

7 Section 5339(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the 

10 following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7365 IH

1 ‘‘(H) the term ‘low-income community’ 

2 means any population census tract if— 

3 ‘‘(i) the poverty rate for such tract is 

4 at least 20 percent; or 

5 ‘‘(ii) in the case of a tract— 

6 ‘‘(I) not located within a metro7 politan area, the median family in8 come for such tract does not exceed 

9 80 percent of statewide median family 

10 income; or 

11 ‘‘(II) located within a metropoli12 tan area, the median family income 

13 for such tract does not exceed 80 per14 cent of the greater statewide median 

15 family income or the metropolitan 

16 area median family income.’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(6) LOW AND MODERATE COMMUNITY

19 GRANTS.—Not less than 10 percent of the amounts 

20 made available under this subsection in a fiscal year 

21 shall be distributed to projects serving predomi22 nantly low-income communities.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit** **32.2**

**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 O'Charley's Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Lawrence E. Hyatt, 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 operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ LAWRENCE E. HYATT       |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Lawrence E. Hyatt           |
| *Chief Financial Officer*** |
| March 12, 2008         |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OF REGISTRANT AS OF MARCH 31,
1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF REGISTRANT FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         476,000
<SECURITIES>                                19,164,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,646,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,037,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,208,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,320,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,835,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,652,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,320,000
<SALES>                                      5,062,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,577,000
<CGS>                                        4,841,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,073,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                81,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,504,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,511,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,511,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
#### Winfred Thomas LLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Herbert P. Sterling, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*228PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00154

- CV

In the Interest of K.R.A., a child §

§

§

§ From the 324th District Court

o f Tarrant County (324

- 455189

- 09 )

March 6, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant B.M.A. shall pay all costs of this appeal,

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bob McCoy

__________________ Justice Bob McCoy
#### George Leon JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Martha Selma JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 71-722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Volie A. Williams, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### William BRYANT, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. David Lavern RUFFIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-900, 70-901.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 15, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4033]

[[Page 7440]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Meeting of the Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing 
and Communications, Information Technology, and the Next Generation 
Internet

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the 
first meeting of the Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing 
and Communications, Information Technology, and the Next Generation 
Internet, and describes the functions of the Committee. The meeting 
will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is required under 
the federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 92-463). Notice of this 
meeting is less than fifteen days prior to the meeting due to an 
administrative delay.

DATES: February 27-28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Room 1235 NSF Board Room, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Committee on High Performance 
Computing and Communications, Information Technology, and the Next 
Generation Internet was established on February 11, 1997, by Executive 
Order 13035 and will expire two years from that date. The purpose of 
the Committee is to provide the National Science and Technology 
Council, through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, with advice and information on high performance computing and 
communications. The Committee members are a well-balanced group of 
distinguished individuals appointed by the president from various non-
Federal sectors.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND AGENDA: The Advisory Committee will meet in open 
session from approximately 8:30 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 
on February 27, 1997, and from approximately 8:30 a.m. to noon on 
February 28, 1997. This first meeting will focus discussions on 
necessary historical perspectives; Federal computing, information, and 
communications R&D investments including the Next Generation Internet 
Initiative; identifying Government roles in High End Computing and 
Computation; and formulating approaches for partnering with academia 
and industry.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please call the National Coordination Office 
for Computing, Information, and Communications at (703) 306-4722. 
Public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a 
first-come, first-served basis.

    Dated: February 12, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-4033 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Salvadore OVELLA.

No. 61027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1978.

ORDER

On motion of the defendant-relator in the above captioned matter, it is ordered that the writ previously granted 353 So.2d 1035, be dismissed.