alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Louis SMITH and James Campbell.

No. 60720.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 1977.

In re: Louis Smith applying for writ of certiorari.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Elmo E. Lear, Judge of the 19th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 28th day of November, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, *1215why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Linda M. LOEHR.

No. 60738.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 1977.

In re: Linda M. Loehr applying for writs of review.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Robert M. Fleming, Judge of the 16th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of St. Mary to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 28th day of November, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court, and the respondent through Counsel shall show cause in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for the petition of the relator should not be granted.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00215

- CR

N ELSON C HRISTOPHER H EAD

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 78th District Court

of Wichita County ( 59,481

- B )

February 9, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the tria l court’s judgment s . It is ordered that the judgment s of the

trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 26, 2024 No. 24-04

GPO MEDIA CONTACT: GARY SOMERSET 202.512.1957 | mb 202.355.3997 | gsomerset@gpo.gov 

GPO SECURES SPOT ON FORBES’ AMERICA’S BEST 

EMPLOYER LIST FOR THIRD YEAR IN A ROW

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) has been named one of the 

best employers in America by Forbes for the third year in a row. GPO ranked in the top 15 

amongst mid-sized agencies in Government Services. GPO joined the National Archives 

and Records Administration and Federal Communications Commission in the category for 

best Government agencies.

Forbes’ America’s Best Midsize Employers 2024: https://www.forbes.com/lists/bestmidsize-employers/?sh=480798d0210f

“For three years in a row now, our teammates have rated GPO highly on this survey and 

landed GPO on America’s best employer list,” said GPO Director Hugh Nathanial Halpern. 

“Our team is full of top-notch craftspeople and professionals who embrace and carry out

GPO’s values. GPO is a special place to work, and it’s all thanks to them. We look forward to 

continuing to take pride in our work and work together toward our common vision of an 

America Informed.”

GPO is working to build its team of the future with its Apprenticeship and Recent Graduate 

programs. In fiscal year 2023, GPO onboarded 190 teammates, 41 percent more than it did 

in the prior fiscal year. The Agency also produced a record number of passports in one 

year—more than 22 million—all while delivering products and services for all three 

branches of the U.S. Government.

Forbes and Statista selected America’s Best Employers 2024 based on results found 

through an independent survey of more than 170,000 U.S.-based workers at America 

companies. The evaluation was based on respondents who were asked to rate their 

employer and if they would recommend their employer to others. Organizations with 

1,000 to 5,000 employees were deemed midsize employers. Responses were given by 

current employees, employees who had worked for the company within the past two years, 

and individuals familiar with the company through friends, family or peers in their 

industry. 
GPO is the Federal Government’s resource for publishing trusted information for the 

Federal Government to the American people. The GPO is responsible for the production 

and distribution of information products and services for all three branches of the Federal 

Government, including U.S. passports for the Department of State as well as the official 

publications of Congress, the White House, and other Federal agencies in digital and print 

formats. GPO provides for permanent public access to Federal Government information at 

no charge through www.GovInfo.gov and partnerships with approximately 1,100 libraries 

nationwide participating in the Federal Depository Library Program. For more 

information, please visit www.gpo.gov.

 ###
<PAGE>

                            ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                      TO
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF


       ----------------------------------------------------------------------
       GTE FLORIDA INCORPORATED
       ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   (present name)

     Pursuant to the provisions of section 607.1006, Florida Statutes, this
     Florida profit corporation adopts the following articles of amendment to
     its articles of incorporation:

     FIRST: Amendment(s) adopted: (indicate article number(s) being amended,
     added or deleted)

Article First is hereby amended to read as follows:

First: The name of the corporation is Verizon Florida Inc.





     SECOND: If an amendment provides for an exchange, reclassification or
     cancellation of issued shares, provisions for implementing the amendment if
     not contained in the amendment itself, are as follows:





     THIRD: The date of each amendment's adoption:  June 15, 2000
                                                   ---------------





     FOURTH: Adoption of Amendment(s) (CHECK ONE)

<PAGE>

     /X/ The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders. The number of
         votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were sufficient for approval.

     / / The amendment(s) was/were approved by the shareholders through voting
         groups. The following statement must be separately provided for each
         voting group entitled to vote separately on the amendment(s):

              "The number of votes cast for the amendment(s) was/were
              sufficient for approval by __________________________."
                                                 voting group

     / / The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the board of directors without
         shareholder action and shareholder action was not required.

     / / The amendment(s) was/were adopted by the incorporators without
         shareholder action and shareholder action was not required.


         Signed this 30th day of June, 2000.

Signature    /s/ Rosalynn Christian
           ------------------------------------------------------------
           (By the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors,
           President or other officer if adopted by the shareholders)

                                      OR
                  (By a director if adopted by the directors)

                                      OR
             (By an incorporator if adopted by the incorporators)

                  Rosalynn Christian
                  -------------------------------------------
                             Typed or printed name

                  Assistant Secretary
                  -------------------------------------------
                                     Title
259 La. 740

#### Mrs. Doris R. MARTIN, et al. v. Joseph GARLOTTE, et al.

No. 51555.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1971.

In re: Joseph Garlotte and The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 248 So.2d 37.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, Appellant, v. James EVANS, Appellee.

No. 38860.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 11, 1970.

*837Gordon G. Oldham, Jr., Assigned State’s Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Steven Falk of Law Officers of O’Malley & Ciravolo, Miami, for appellee.

DREW, Justice.

The trial court, in a habeas corpus proceeding, held paragraphs 30.15(a) and 30.15 (b),1 Code of Metropolitan Dade County, void because of its failure to incorporate the provisions for a jury trial contained in Section 322.262(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The direct appeal here by the Sheriff of Dade County is accepted under authority of Boyd v. County of Dade, 123 So.2d 323 (Fla.1960).

This case is governed by the decision of this Court rendered this day in the case of Smith v. Davis, 231 So.2d 517 (Fla.)

We are not persuaded by the argument of appellee that because this case arose under the Code of Metropolitan Dade County it is governed by different principles from those involved in the Vero Beach case.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

CARLTON, J., SPECTOR, District Court of Appeal Judge, and VANN, Circuit Judge, concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.

1

. “Sec. 30-15. Driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; narcotics, barbiturates, or other stimulants; penalties.

> “(a) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (b) for any person who is an habitual user of narcotic drugs or any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, barbiturates or central nervous system stimulants as defined in Section 404.01, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this county.

> “(b) Every person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) shall for first conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not less than forty-eight (48) hours nor more than sixty (60) days or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second conviction within a period of three years from the date of a prior conviction for violation of subsection (a), such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than sixty (60) days and, in the discretion of the court, a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by both such fine and imprisonment; upon a third or subsequent conviction within a period of five years from the date of conviction of the first two (2) or more convictions for violations of subsection (a), such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year and, in the discretion of the court, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,-000.00).“
<TABLE>
<S>     <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>


                                                               EXHIBIT 11.1

                           EXPERT SOFTWARE, INC.

           STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
            FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,1996, 1995 AND 1994
                   (in thousands, except per share data)



                                        1996        1995        1994
                                     ----------  ----------  ----------

Net income (loss)...................  $(10,281)    $(2,185)     $2,333
Less preferred stock dividends......       --          (41)       (132)
                                     ----------  ----------  ----------
Income (loss) applicable to common    
stock...............................  $(10,281)    $(2,226)     $2,201
                                     ==========  ==========  ==========

Weighted average common shares          
outstanding.........................     7,482       6,708       5,105
Dilutive stock options..............       268         445         690
                                     ----------  ----------  ----------
                                    
Weighted average number of common
stock and common stock equivalents
for primary earnings per share......     7,750       7,153       5,795
                                     ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income (loss) per share.........   $(1.33)      $(.31)       $.38
                                     ==========  ==========  ==========

</TABLE>
#### INTERSTATE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles W. HOLMES d/b/a Holmes Radio and Record Shop, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6328.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 6, 1977.

John G. Williams, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellant.

Makar & Whitaker by John B. Whitaker, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, CULPEPPER and GUI-DRY, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS

GUIDRY, Judge.

Because an examination of this record revealed an apparent jurisdictional defect, *996we issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed due to the appellant’s failure to timely file the appeal bond required by his order of appeal dated June 27, 1977. The appellant has timely responded to the rule.

This is a suit on an open account. Judgment was read and signed in this matter in favor of the defendant on May 17,1977, and according to the record, notices of judgment were mailed to the parties on May 18,1977.

On June 27, 1977, the plaintiff moved for and was granted a devolutive appeal, returnable to this court on August 25, 1977. Bond was set at $300.00. However, the appellant did not file its appeal bond until August 22, 1977, which was later than the 60 days he had under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2087(1) in which to perfect his appeal.

In its answer, the appellant argues that no notice of judgment was received, therefore it had, citing LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1913, 60 days from the date in which it moved for its appeal in which to file the appeal bond. We disagree. Whether or not the appellant received a notice of judgment is not important in this case, since the record shows that the matter was not taken under advisement, nor was written request for a notice of judgment filed.

Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to notice under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1913. Under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2087(1) the appellant’s time for perfecting its appeal began to run on May 18, 1977, and expired on July 25, 1977. Since the appellant did not perfect its appeal by filing its appeal bond by this date, its appeal must be dismissed.

The plaintiff-appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed at its cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.5.2

                AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY, INC.
               AMENDED AND RESTATED 1997 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
                      ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
               UTI ENERGY CORP. (THE "COMPANY") ON APRIL 27, 2000

         RESOLVED, that an amendment to the UTI Energy Corp. Amended and
Restated 1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "1997 Plan"), to increase the number
of shares authorized for issuance under the 1997 Plan by 400,000 is hereby
authorized, ratified and approved.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08744**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08744\08744_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08744\08744_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08744\08744_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08744\08744_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08744\08744_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08744\08744_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08744\08744_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08744\08744_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

08744\08744_Signed_Certification_Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 08744\Supporting Documents\08744_Cover_Letter.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08744\Supporting Documents\08744_Part_A_5-2_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08744\Supporting Documents\08744_Part_A_5-3_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08744\Supporting Documents\08744_Part_D_3-1_D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08744\Supporting Documents\08744_Part_D_3-1_D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08744\Supporting Documents\08744_Part_D_3-1_D-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### FIRST GULF BEACH BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Fernando M. ALVAREZ, and Ada Alvarez, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1969.

John T. Allen, Jr., of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellant..

Edward M. Waller, Jr., of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellees.

MANN, Judge.

There is ambiguous testimony in this record which supports the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff. The trial judge properly allowed the case to go to the jury and *746entered judgment on its verdict. We must view the record most favorably to the plaintiff and conclude that this case is differentiated from Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Manning, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 339, in that there the grapes on which plaintiff slipped were piled in a bin by the store’s employees and here the water on which plaintiff slipped was “coming from the water cooler” which admittedly could overflow and had to be manually emptied. Appellant asks us to find the plaintiff’s evidence incredible, but that argument is properly addressed to a jury. At least as a matter of law negligence may be inferred from the facts proven.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
#### James P. KNIGHT, Jr., and Annie Lou Knight, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-3172.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 27, 1977.

Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Joseph E. Brown, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary R. Allen, William S. Estabrook, III, Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, App. Sec., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.

James P. Knight, Jr., pro se.

Before WISDOM, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal by the government raises the question whether the district court erred in holding that the excess contribution that the court found was made to taxpayer’s profit sharing plan trust in 1969 was not “willfully made” within the meaning of Section 401(e)(2)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. We adopt Judge Russell’s opinion below, S.D.Miss.1975, 395 F.Supp. 1, and for the reasons stated therein, AFFIRM.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**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 Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q/A of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (“the Company”) for the quarterlyperiod ended September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul V. Hoagland, as SeniorVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Clerk of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss. 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. |

 

 
|   |   | By:                                                     | /s/ PAUL V. HOAGLAND  |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |   | Name:                                                   | Paul V. Hoagland      |
|   |   | Title:                                                  | Senior Vice President |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer,  Treasurer and Assistant Clerk |
|   |   | Date:                                                   | November 4, 2002      |
|        |        |                                                         |                       |        |  |

 

 

----
#### Frank MARKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-588.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; E. Summers Sheffey, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### Jose M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-864.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
263 La. 990

#### Lawes J. ALONZO v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

No. 53041.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Lawes J. Alonzo applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State Civil Service Commission. 268 So.2d 52.

Writ refused. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7278

MCKINLEY DAVID LITTLEJOHN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY MOODY, Safety Manager; MIKE GIBBS,

Electric Foreman; CHUCK LLOYD, Counselor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-330-2)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

McKinley David Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

McKinley Littlejohn, a federal inmate, appeals a district

court order dismissing his complaint alleging that three prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety.

We have reviewed the record and the district court order and find

Littlejohn failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference. See

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Accordingly, we

affirm. 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