alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-94.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This court having consolidated for appeal this case and 14 others wherein the same defendant was charged with 15 separate offenses arising out of one search and seizure and one arrest, and the same principles of law being applicable, the order appealed from in this case is reversed pursuant to our decision in State of Florida O’Steen, 238 So.2d 434, opinion filed this date.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Sutura, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
fourth quarter of 2006 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
 Date: April 17, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Richard BjorkmanRichard BjorkmanChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000040656
<NAME>                        General Semiconductor, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         4,037
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  55,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                   795
<INVENTORY>                                    36,070
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,804
<PP&E>                                         222,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 554,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          57,356
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       369
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   554,045
<SALES>                                        302,382
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               302,382
<CGS>                                          211,720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  254,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               84
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                32,272
<INCOME-TAX>                                   10,005
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            22,267
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   22,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.60
        


</TABLE>
#### Ted C. TOLLETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 40998.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1973.

Cause dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1805

CALVIN EARL BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

(P & D Lodging, Inc.),

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 06-1815

CALVIN EARL BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Pitt

Co. Schools,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 06-1816

CALVIN EARL BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
- 2 -

versus

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Sam’s

Club, Inc.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00074-H; 4:05-cv-00075-H;

4:05-cv-00148-H)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Calvin E. Brown appeals from three separate actions

alleging employment discrimination, which have been consolidated on

appeal. In each case, the district court adopted the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss as frivolous the

action, under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915(A) (West Supp. 2006),

and noted that despite clear notice, Brown failed to file

objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Thus Brown

has waived his right to appeal these orders. Wells v. Shriners

Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v.

Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). We find no reversible

error in the district court’s orders in each case denying Brown’s

motion to reconsider and his motion to appoint counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. See

Brown v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, No. 4:05-cv-74-H

(E.D.N.C. June 20, 2006 & July 7, 2006); Brown v. Equal Employment

Opportunity Comm’n, No. 4:05-cv-75-H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2006 &

July 7, 2006); Brown v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, No.

4:05-cv-148-H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2006 & July 7, 2006). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]  

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:47 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Smith; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson;

Carlos Siqueiros; Caskey, John; Chad Kennedy; Chris Brown; Creevy, Jim; Dan

Cohen; Daniel Young; Eduardo Robles; Edwards, Brenda; Eric Peterson; Freeman,

Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Schoen; Jim

Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Katie Coughlin; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine

Savitz; Meg Waltner; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski,

Raymond; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul;

Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Patzner; Thomas

Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Vijay Tendulkar; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: Re: LV Transformer Call;

Wrong attachment, please refer to this one.

Thank you,

‐ Chris

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Christopher Bolduc <cabolduc@lbl.gov> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,

>

> As requested, attached are the draft NIA results by efficiency level  

> with both ZDMH, and SA1 excluded from the analysis.

>

> Thank you,

> ‐ Chris Bolduc

>

> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Richard Parker  

> <richardparkerdc@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Dear Colleagues,

>>

>> Attached hot off the press are the updated and revised LCC/PBB and  

>> NIA results for low voltage transformers, DL 6‐8, with engineering  

>> scatterplots included.  Please note that a new TSL (TSL 7) has been  

>> added to reflect the NEMA premium EL. You will see that the TSL  

>> numbering system is not listed in order of increasing stringency.

>>

>> See you on the call at 2:00 pm on Monday, Nov. 28.

>>

>> All best,

>> RIchard Parker

>> Facilitator

>>

>

>

>

> ‐‐ 

>

> ‐‐‐‐ 

> Chris Bolduc

> Energy Efficiency Standards Group
> Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National  

> Laboratory t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021

>

‐‐  

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Victor LINKLETTER and Billy Jack Morris.

No. 53570.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1973.

John M. Shaw, Opelousas, Kearney Tate, for defendants-appellants.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Morgan J. Goudeau, III, Dist. Atty., Robert Brink-man, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

BARHAM, Justice.

Defendants Linkletter and Morris were charged by bill of information with simple burglary, in violation of R.S. 14:62, were subsequently convicted after a jury trial and were each sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Seeking reversal of their convictions and sentences, defendants urge numerous bills of exceptions before this Court. A discussion of all but one of the various bills of exceptions urged is unnecessary, in view of the fact that we find merit in Bill of Exceptions No. *2*
      ***

Bill of Exceptions No. 2 was reserved when the trial court refused to grant defendants’ motion to quash the information, in view of the State’s refusal to furnish certain information in response to defendants’ request for a bill of particulars. Some of the information sought were answers to the following questions :

> What specific intent is alleged by the State of Louisiana to have been the basis for the alleged illegal entry ?

> Was a forcible felony or theft committed therein ?

The Court held, in State v. Linkletter, Linkletter, and Morris, 286 So.2d 321 (No. 53,571 on our docket this day), that defendants charged with simple burglary by short form .information were entitled to have the information quashed, since it did not sufficiently inform them of the nature and cause of the offense with which they *331were charged, where the State refused to supply the information to which they were constitutionally entitled by way of answer to their application for a bill of particulars. That holding is similarly applicable and controls here. For a full discussion of the issue, see Linkletter, Linkletter, and Morris, supra.

For the reason stated hereinabove, the defendants’ convictions and sentences are hereby reversed.

SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent.

SUMMERS, J., dissents with .reasons.

If the State chooses to re-try the defendants in the instant case, it will wish to note the applicability of our decision in State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973) (cited in defendants’ Bill No. 6), regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, to the renewed prosecution of defendants for this offense.

SUMMERS, Justice

(dissenting).

See my dissent in State v. Linkletter, Linkletter and Morris, No. 53,571, on the docket of this Court handed down October 29, 1973, 286 So.2d 321.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy McGUINNESS.

No. 61812.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

A. J. Boudreaux, Staff Appeals Counsel, 24th Judicial District Indigent Defender Board, Kenner, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., William Hall, Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 10(q)**

Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. 

2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan 

Compensation Committee Resolution for 9/26/06 

Amendment #1 

Resolved, that Section 2.19 of the 2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan be amended to read inits entirety as follows: 

“*Fair Market Value*” means, as of any date, the closing price of a Share as reported on the American StockExchange (or such other consolidated transaction reporting system on which the Shares are primarily traded) or, if the Shares were not traded on such day, then the next preceding day on which the Shares were traded, all as reported by such source asthe Committee may select. If the Shares are not traded on a national securities exchange or other market system, Fair Market Value shall be determined in the manner established by the Committee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONDENSED BALANCE
SHEETS AND CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MAY 2, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,689
<INVENTORY>                                     59,344
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,680
<PP&E>                                         203,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 375,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,390
<BONDS>                                          6,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   375,413
<SALES>                                        119,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,805
<CGS>                                           82,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,333)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    70
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,419
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
#### Leroy MACKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-948.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 7, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### S. Peter CAPUA, as administrator of the Estate of Bernabe Hernandez, Deceased, Appellant, v. Peter RAGONE and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 77-1890.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 20, 1978.

West, Friesner & Goldman and Harold West, Miami, for appellant.

Weinstein & Bavly and Arthur J. Mor-burger, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Kahn v. Delaware Securities Corp.,*114 Fla. 32, 153 So. 308 (1934).
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brandon H. LaVerne, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PCM, Inc.; and

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

 

 
| Date:   April 30, 2014 | /s/   Brandon H. LaVerne  |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Brandon   H. LaVerne      |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2030

GEANNETTE J. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LAKE TAYLOR HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-1153-2) Submitted: November 16, 1999 Decided: December 17, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geannette J. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca McFerren King, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

### 2 PER CURIAM: Geannette Foster appeals the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Respondent on Foster’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); granting the Respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Foster’s claim under the Privacy Act of 1974; and denying Foster’s motion to amend her complaint. We have reviewed the record and the opinion of the district court and find no reversible error. The district court properly found that Foster failed to present a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge under the ADA and that Foster failed to present evidence that the Respondent was on notice of her need for leave under the FMLA. The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to permit Foster to amend her complaint to add a state tort claim. We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., d/b/a )

FLIGHTLINE FIRST, )

)

Complainant, )

v. ) DOCKET NO. 16

- 11

-- 01

)

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION AND )

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO )

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF )

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS FOR THE MANAGEMENT )

OF THE LAKEFRONT AIRPORT; )

NON

- FLOOD PROTECTION ASSET )

MANAGEME NT AUTHORITY, AS )

SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT a nd ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE D ISTRICT, DIVISION OF )

NON

- FLOOD A SSETS, )

)

Respondents

. )

AMENDMENT TO CORRECT ERRATA TO THE COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Flightline Ground, Inc. , Complainant in the above

- captioned matter, and amends the

Complaint to correct errors. To that end, the following paragraphs appearing below are recast and corrected:

35.

In the Underlying Litigat io n, AeroPremier alleged the OLD had failed to effect improvements to the NG

Hangar by August 8 , 200 9 , and AeroPremier placed the OLD in default and withheld rent payments several months

before the lease called for completion of the hangar situated on the Airport. Id . ¶ ¶ 9, 13, 14

.

4 6

.

On November 2, 2009, counsel for Complainant dispatched a letter to Louis J. Capo, the Director of OLD in

the form attached hereto and marked as Complainant’s Exhibit 2. In that letter, Complain ant asserted violations of

Grant Assurance Nos. 22c, 5 and 24, and referred Respondents to 49 U.S.C. § 4710 7 ( a )(5), (7), (13). Further,

Complainant requested that Respondents cease further violations of the Sponsor Grant Assurances. Id . at 4

- 5.

[signatu re next page]2 Respectfully submitted, this the 24 th day of March , 201 1

.

s/ Alan Armstrong

_____________________________ _____ Alan Armstrong

GA Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant, Flightline Ground, I nc

.

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, GA 30341

P: 770.451.0313 F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this day served the Respondents or their counsel of record in

the foregoing matter with the foregoing AMENDMENT TO CORRECT ERRATA TO THE COMPLAINT 

### h as been

served upon Brandon Brown, Esq., Counsel for the L ouisiana Department of Transportation and

Development via electronic mail at brandon.brown@la.go v and also that a copy of same has been served

upon Charles Curtis, Esq. via electronic mail at ccurtis@metzgerlawfirm.com

, counsel for the Non

- Flood

Protection Asset Management Authority (the “authority”) and also Gerard Metzger, Esq., counsel for the

authority via electronic mail at gerry@metzgerlawfirm.com

.

This the 24 th day of March

, 201 1

.

s/ Alan Armstrong

________________________________ ____ Alan Armstrong

GA Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant, Flightline Ground, Inc

.

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, GA 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
#### Ronald COMMISSO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-528.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      21.1**





**SUBSIDIARIES
      OF THE REGISTRANT**




All
      of
      the subsidiaries listed below are direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries
      of Apollo Gold Corporation: :




Apollo
      Gold, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)


Montana
      Tunnels Mining, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)


Mine
      Development Finance, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)


Minera
      Sol de Oro S.A. de C.V (a Mexican federal corporation)


Minas
      de
      Argonautas, S. de R.L. de C.V. (a Mexican federal limited
      partnership)