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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 48619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19955]

[[Page 48619]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From All Terms, 
Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement 
Between the City of Orlando and the Federal Aviation Administration for 
the Orlando International Airport, Orlando, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release 
approximately 44.30 acres at the Orlando International Airport, 
Orlando, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as 
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of 
Orlando, dated September 27,1976. The release of property will allow 
the City of Orlando to dispose of the property for other than 
aeronautical purposes. The property is located along the south side of 
SR 528 (Beachline), curves south at Semoran Blvd./Jeff Fuqua Blvd., and 
continues to an area located to the north of Boggy Creek Road within 
the Orlando International Airport. The parcels are currently designated 
as non-aeronautical use. The property will be released of its federal 
obligations to grant an easement for multimodal transportation corridor 
purposes. The fair market value of this parcel has been determined to 
be $12,549,000. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are 
available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Greater Orlando 
Aviation Authority at Orlando International Airport and the FAA 
Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Greater Orlando 
Aviation Authority at Orlando International Airport, and the FAA 
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, 
Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be 
delivered or mailed to: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager, Orlando 
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, 
Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on August 7, 2015.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-19955 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
| Area Code/County              | Count |
|-------------------------------|-------|
| 480  Arizona                  | 20790 |
| 520  Arizona                  | 14102 |
| 602  Arizona                  | 15237 |
| 623  Arizona                  | 8224  |
| 928  Arizona                  | 7113  |
| Apache Arizona                | 437   |
| Cochise Arizona               | 2878  |
| Coconino Arizona              | 1770  |
| Gila Arizona                  | 1027  |
| Graham Arizona                | 191   |
| Greenlee Arizona              | 83    |
| La Paz Arizona                | 190   |
| Maricopa Arizona              | 64673 |
| Mohave Arizona                | 3242  |
| Navajo Arizona                | 804   |
| No Zip Code Reported, Arizona | 644   |
| Pima Arizona                  | 15835 |
| Pinal Arizona                 | 5012  |
| Santa Cruz Arizona            | 140   |
| Yavapai Arizona               | 5986  |
| Yuma Arizona                  | 1324  |
**ACTIONPOINT, INC.                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE                                (UNAUDITED)                 (In thousands, except per share amounts)**                                     Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended                                          June 30,            June 30,                                    ------------------- -------------------                                       2000      1999      2000      1999                                    --------- --------- --------- ---------Net income (loss).................   ($1,750)     $185   ($6,889)     $312                                    ========= ========= ========= =========Shares used in basic EPS calculation......................     4,179     4,475     4,157     4,592Dilutive effect of stock options..........................        --         9        --        10                                    --------- --------- --------- ---------Shares used in diluted EPS calculation......................     4,179     4,484     4,157     4,602                                    ========= ========= ========= =========Basic EPS.........................    ($0.42)    $0.04    ($1.66)    $0.07Diluted EPS.......................    ($0.42)    $0.04    ($1.66)    $0.07                                    ========= ========= ========= =========
At June 30, 2000 and 1999, 2,755,964 and 1,970,663 options outstanding werenot included in the computation of diluted EPS because the exercise price wasgreater than the average market price or because the Company incurred a netloss.
#### Willie C. WIMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 2, 1971.

Willie C. Wimes, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

*444Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### NATIONAL GUN TRADERS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Fernando Costa, Petitioners, v. E. D. POLHAMUS, individually and as widower, and E. D. Polhamus, as the personal representative of the Estate of Frances Polhamus, deceased, Respondent.

No. 38342.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 3, 1969.

James E. Tribble, of Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for petitioners.

William S. Frates, Robert L. Floyd and Larry S, Stewart, of Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES

               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                     Washington, D.C. 20549

                            FORM 8-K

        Current Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

               The Securities Exchange Act of 1934


 Date of Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported): December 3, 2002


                       NOVO NETWORKS, INC.
     (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)


          Delaware                0-28579             75-2233445
(State or Other Jurisdiction    (Commission         (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)         File Number)     Identification Number)


       2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 400,
                  Dallas, Texas                       75201
     (Address of Principal Executive Offices)      (Zip Code)



Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (214) 777-4100



  (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)


<PAGE>

Item 5.   Other Events and Regulation FD Disclosure

          On December 3, 2002, the Registrant received Mr. Mark R. Graham's
          letter of resignation from the Registrant's Board of Directors,
          effective November 27, 2002.  Mr. Graham held a seat as a Class I
          Director.  Mr. Jan Robert Horsfall will continue as the sole
          Class I Director until such time, if any, as the Board of Directors
          appoints an individual to fill the remainder of Mr. Graham's term.
          Class I Directors are up for re-election by the Registrant's
          Stockholders at the 2003 Annual Meeting.


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report
to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly
authorized.

                                   NOVO NETWORKS, INC.


Date: December 3, 2002              /s/  BARRETT N. WISSMAN
                                   -----------------------------
                                   Name:     Barrett N. Wissman
                                   Title:    President
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,528-01

EX PARTE ISAAC GUTIERREZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1514075-A IN THE 178 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of super aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to forty years’

imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Gutierrez v. State, 14-18-

00404-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 ] June 8, 2020)(not designated for publication). Applicant th

filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate and call

witnesses, failed to investigate and challenge the qualifications of the police officer who translated

Applicant’s statement to police from Spanish to English, and failed to file a motion to limit the

introduction of prior bad acts. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. 
2

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The

trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). 

The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the

record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to

hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. It appears that Applicant is

represented by counsel. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial

court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s

name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 2, 2022

Do not publish
#### WATTS & HAYNES ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. and Western Casualty & Surety Company v. Mose H. HANSCOM.

No. 45470.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 27, 1969.

Cox, Dunn & Clark, William H. Cox, Jr., Jackson, for appellants.

Pyles & Tucker, Jackson, for appellee.

JONES, Justice:

This is a workmen’s compensation case in which there are two issues involved: (1) The question of compensability after an infarction had healed; and (2) Change in the method of computing apportionment.

On the first issue two doctors testified, one for the appellant and one for the ap-pellee. The testimony of the appellee’s doctor furnished substantial evidence to support the finding of the Commission insofar as the compensability and apportionment is concerned. We find no reason to reverse the order and finding of the Commission on the question of compensability.

However, the case was tried prior to the case of Cockrell Banana Company v. Harris, 212 So.2d 581 (Miss.1968), and, also prior to the passage of House Bill 671, section 3 of the Mississippi Laws of 1958, and the Commission made no provision for payment and apportionment in accordance with the *Cockrell Banana*case and said House Bill 671, section 3 of the Mississippi Laws of 1958.

The case is therefore affirmed as to compensability but is remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for further proceedings as to apportionment, both as to weekly payments and the maximum benefit.

Affirmed and remanded.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Gentlemen, 

Kathy Wilke <wilkat.1651@gmail.com> 

Sunday, August OS, 2012 5:40 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Rhinelander Airport ·service ... ····· b 

I wish to extend my wish that SkyWest be offered a contract to supply service to the Rhinelander Wisconsin 

Airport. 

Currently, I am unable to utilize the Frontier line because it does not service the major airports where I can get 

connecting flights. It is a shame to have such a fine airport, just 30 miles from our home, not have a service that 

meets the needs of its' community. By bringing in the SkyWest line and a jet service to Minneapolis, I would 

be able · 

to try to book my weekly flights from our horne airport. Please consider the people of the Lakeland area and the 

convenience of having a jet air service supply our community. 

Regards, 

Kathy Wilke 

11452 Lemma Creek Rd 

Arbor Vitae, WI 54568 

(715) 614~4046 

Kathy:) 

( 

1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL SMITH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2862

[ November 9, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying 3.800 motion f rom the Circuit Court for the

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502006CF003566A

.

Michael Smith, Avon Park, pro se.

No appearance required by appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., conur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Quarterly Report of The Banker's Store, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10- QSB for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent
      C. Buckman, 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 based on 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.








Dated:January 14, 2008/s/
                Vincent C.
                BuckmanVincent
                C. BuckmanPresident
                and ChiefExecutive
                Officer
```
 
```

```
Exhibit 99.4
```

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

I, Jerome E. Ball, Chief Executive Officer for ForwardIndustries, Inc. certify that:

  1.                    I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of  Forward Industries, 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  statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the  financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as  of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

 

Dated July 22, 2003

|   | /s/ JEROME E. BALLJerome E. Ball    Chief Executive Officer    Principal Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
/ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TURBO SOLUTIONS INC., f/k/a Alex Miller 

Financial Services Inc., d/b/a Alex Miller 

Credit Repair, and 

ALEXANDER V. MILLER, in his individual 

and corporate capacity, 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 4:22-mc-369 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

ORDER UNSEALING CASE 

The Court having considered Plaintiff the United States of America's Motion to Unseal 

Case, filed March 10, 2022, and finding the motion to be supported by good cause, 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is hereby unsealed. 

J('-

DONE AND ORDERED, this f L.\ day of fY\~.-c. "-, 2022. 

U.S. District Judge 

Case 4:22-mc-00369 Document 12 Filed on 03/14/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 1 

United States District Court 

Southern District of Texas 

ENTERED

March 15, 2022 

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 10/28/2022 | Document No. 606027 | PAGE Page 1 of 1 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Intuit, Inc., ) Docket No. 9408 

a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Non-party Collier.Simon and Complaint Counsel for the Federal Trade Commission 

(“FTC”) filed a joint motion to extend the time for Collier.Simon to file a motion to quash or to 

limit a subpoena duces tecum served on Collier.Simon by Complaint Counsel (“Joint Motion”).

Upon review and consideration of the Joint Motion, the Joint Motion is GRANTED. It is 

hereby ORDERED that Collier.Simon’s deadline to file a motion to quash or to limit the FTC’s

subpoena duces tecum is hereby extended until and including November 10, 2022. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: October 28, 2022
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-131-CV

MIKE BELLO D/B/A NUCLEUS SERVICE 	APPELLANT

STATION

	V.

STATE OF TEXAS AND THE DIRECTOR 	APPELLEES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

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

	FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	The State of Texas and the Director Department of Public Safety (collectively “T.D.P.S.”) have moved to dismiss this appeal as moot.  We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  

	Appellant Mike Bello d/b/a Nucleus Service Station’s (“the Station”) vehicle inspection license was suspended for violation of Cchapter 548 of the Texas Transportation Code. [App. Appen. E7] The Station appealed the suspension in the 342nd District Court of Tarrant County, and T.D.P.S. filed a plea to the jurisdiction, contending that jurisdiction for such suits lies exclusively in Travis County.  [1 CR 2, 53-54] See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 548.408(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.176(b)(2) (Vernon Supp 20002004). [1 CR 53] The trial court granted T.D.P.S.’s plea and dismissed the cause. [3 Cr 400a] This appeal followed. 

	A justiciable controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal.  Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001).  Accordingly, if a controversy ceases to exist—"the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome"—the case becomes moot.  Id. (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 1183 (1982)).  If a case becomes moot, the parties lose their standing to maintain their claims.  Id.

	On December 11, 2003, during the pendency of this appeal, the Station’s six-month suspension expired.  Thereafter, the Station became eligible to apply for reinstatement of its certification as an inspection station.2  Therefore, there

 is no live case or controversy between the parties.  Accordingly, we grant 

T.D.P.S.’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.  It is further ordered that  the Station shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

							PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

DELIVERED:	  jANUARYJANUARY 29, 2004