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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Petitioner,

v.

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND

No. 96-2625

DRY DOCK COMPANY,

Respondent,

and

SUSAN CAMPBELL,

Claimant.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(94-240)

Argued: July 7, 1997

Decided: September 2, 1997

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the

District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Joshua Thomas Gillelan, II, Senior Attorney, Office of

the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin McMullan Mason,

MASON & MASON, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondent.

ON BRIEF: J. Davitt McAteer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Carol A.

De Deo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The present appeal was taken based upon Section 8(f) of the Longshoreman's Act. 33 U.S.C. § 908(f). This case was decided by an

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on September 21, 1993. After the

ALJ reached his decision, this court decided Director, OWCP v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (Harcum), 8 F.3d 175 (4th

Cir. 1993). The court remands the matter to the ALJ for further findings in light of Harcum.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

 2
#### John A. RHOADES, Jr., as Trustee of the Nena Ann Marinelli Trust, Appellant, v. G. C. WEAVER, Appellee.

No. 72-601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CURTIS C. PHILLIPS JR.,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC K. DOWDLE, ESQUIRE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 418 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of November, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Ronald D. Ordway, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Video Display Corporation;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

| Date: June 14, 2006 | /s/ RONALD D.  ORDWAY    |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|
|                     | Ronald D. Ordway         |
|                     | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                           PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
                                               -------------------------------------------
                                                   NUMBER          PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                OF SHARES        OUTSTANDING      SHARES
                                               -------------     -----------     ----------  
<S>                                                <C>             <C>            <C>      
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                            2,300,000       100.00%        2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                           620,483        99.87%          619,666
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock      15,310,943       100.00%       15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                    11,242,857       100.00%       11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                     4,323,874       100.00%        4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                      6,000,000       100.00%        6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued         31,275       100.00%           31,275
   1997 Warrants Exercised                            34,500        54.44%           18,783
                                              --------------                   ------------
                                                  39,863,932                     39,847,398

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                              39,847,398

NET LOSS                                                                       ($12,055,029)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                             ($      0.30)
                                                                               ============
</TABLE>
262 La. 1087

#### Donald Louis PRINCE v. PARETTI PONTIAC COMPANY, INC.

No. 52674.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1972.

In re: Donald Louis Prince applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson, 262 So.2d 826.

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.
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 MangoSoft, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, Dennis M. Goett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sean M. Gavin,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by 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/Dennis M.
      GoettChief Executive OfficerAugust
      16, 2010By:
                          /s/Sean M.
      GavinChief Financial OfficerAugust
      16, 2010





This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35295-35296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15852]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 24b-1; SEC File No. 270-205; OMB Control No. 3235-0194

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

[[Page 35296]]

and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of 
the existing collection of information provided for in the following 
rule: Rule 24b-1 (17 CFR 240.24b-1).
    Rule 24b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a 
et seq.) requires a national securities exchange to keep and make 
available for public inspection a copy of its registration statement 
and exhibits filed with the Commission, along with any amendments 
thereto.
    There are 21 national securities exchanges that spend approximately 
one half hour each complying with this rule, for an aggregate total 
compliance burden of 10.5 hours per year. The staff estimates that the 
average cost per respondent is $65.18 per year, calculated as the costs 
of copying ($13.97) plus storage ($51.21), resulting in a total cost of 
compliance for the respondents of $1,368.78
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should 
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81d2e9e0e6f4e7f5e0dec0e9ece4e5c1eeece3afe4eef1afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54073c3533213220350b153c393130143b39367a313b247a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace 
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9b9bba8b6a48880858b8691a99a8c8ac78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affffdeef0e2cec6c3cdc0d7efdccacc81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 
days of this notice.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15852 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Opinion issued December 2 , 2021

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 00580 - CR

——————————— IN RE JOSEPH NELSON , Relat or Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Joseph Nelson, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that he is entitled to an examining trial and complaining of his pre

- trial detention
. 1 Among other things, the petition does not comply with the requirements

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Joseph Nelson, cause number 20

- CR

3161 , pending in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the H onorable John Ellisor presiding.2

enumerated in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 52.3(a)

– (h), (j)

– (k); T EX . R. A PP . P . 52.7. Accordingly, we deny the petition. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chi ef Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Landau
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P . 47.2(b).
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ

- RODRIGUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00309

- WO

- 5 )

Submitted : April 5, 2017 Decided: May 3, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Rafael Hernandez

- Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rafael Hernandez

- Rodriguez appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). On appeal, he challenges the extent of the district court’s reduc tion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court reduced his sentence to the bottom of his amended Guidelines range based on Amendment 782. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Unite d States v. Hernandez

- Rodriguez , No. 1:11

- cr 00309

- WO

- 5 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00067-CR

JOHN CHARLES DENELSBECK, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Delta County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7735

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the clerk’s record and the court reporter’s record in this matter indicates 

that such records contain unredacted “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a 

birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense 

was committed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(3). The clerk’s and reporter’s record include the 

names of persons who were minors at the time the offense was committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, 

“Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the 

contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in 

paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because 

the clerk’s and reporter’s record contain unredacted sensitive data, we order the clerk of this 

Court, or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal the electronically filed clerk’s 

record and reporter’s record in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 10, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1559 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1559

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the method of 
 determining whether Filipino veterans are United States residents for 
    purposes of eligibility for receipt of the full-dollar rate of 
 compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
                                Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2013

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the method of 
 determining whether Filipino veterans are United States residents for 
    purposes of eligibility for receipt of the full-dollar rate of 
 compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
                                Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Benefits Fairness for Filipino 
Veterans Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN FILIPINO VETERANS FOR 
              FULL-DOLLAR RATE OF BENEFITS UNDER THE LAWS ADMINISTERED 
              BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Section 107(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The Secretary may not 
determine that a person is not an individual residing in the United 
States for purposes of this subsection solely because the person is 
outside the United States for any period of time less than one year.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### COUNTY OF DADE, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Norman F. HAFT, Respondent.

No. 68-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 18, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1968.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and John P. Durant, Asst. State Atty., for petitioner.

Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, for respondent.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and. SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A petition for certiorari by Dade County seeks review of a circuit court order directing the Metropolitan Court of Dade County to tax costs for the respondent.

In March 1965 Haft had been convicted of criminal contempt by a judge of the Metropolitan Court of Dade County. The circuit court reversed this conviction in August 1965. Haft filed a motion to tax costs with the clerk of the Metropolitan Court in September 1965. The motion was denied in March 1967. Haft appealed to the circuit court, which ruled in his favor and entered the order taxing costs in March 1968. Dade County then filed the petition presently before us.

The petitioner urges that there is no statutory or other legal authority for the assessment of costs against it upon an appeal from the Metropolitan Court. We hold that Article XVI, § 9, of the Florida Constitution F.S.A. and § 939.15, Fla.Stat. (1967), F.S.A. authorize the assessment of costs in this situation. Respondent has urged that the statute grants authority for the assessment of costs upon reversal by the circuit court of any conviction in the Metropolitan Court of Dade County for violation of an ordinance. We expressly decline to so hold; such a holding would range beyond the issue presented in this case. We do hold that a conviction for criminal contempt is a conviction of a crime and is therefore within the purview of the statute. See Bloom v. State, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (U.S. May 20, 1968).

Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                           2,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,471
<INVENTORY>                                     30,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,278
<PP&E>                                         148,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 261,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,693
<BONDS>                                        272,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     37,268
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                   (113,837)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   261,678
<SALES>                                        290,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,795
<CGS>                                           98,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,873)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       384
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,257)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          491
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,748)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>