alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued February 25 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00843
- CV

——————————— VINCENT YOUNG , Appellant

V. PRO PLAYER FUNDING, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 58323

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Vincent Young, has filed an unopposed motion requesting that we dismiss his appeal and expedite issuance of the mandate. No prior opinion has
issued. W e grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1).2

The clerk of this Court is directed to issue mandate immediately. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 18 .1( c ). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                      16,047,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,571,188
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,740,951)
<INVENTORY>                                 35,401,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            82,418,832
<PP&E>                                      15,807,233
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,424,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,225,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,006,960
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    58,352,868
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,990,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,343,046
<SALES>                                     29,189,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,189,161
<CGS>                                       16,417,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,417,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,868,104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                52,744
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (299,147)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,625,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (585,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,040,081
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,040,081
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
#### Charles E. RAINEY, A. L. Anderson, George R. Brumfield, William D. Dockerty and W. E. Taylor, members of the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, Mac S. Haines, Pinellas County Tax Assessor, G. M. Whitton, Jr., County Agent, in their official capacity as the Agricultural Zoning Board of Pinellas County, and O. Sanford Jasper, Pinellas County Tax Collector, Appellants, v. Florine NELSON, Appellee.

No. 70-510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 4, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
•'^ -'til / I O |: i;3 

February 20, 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building, Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Because of family and friends I often fly to Reagan National. My daughter works for HHS 

and her husband-to-be works for HUD. 

Sun Country's flight from Lansing to Reagan National is significantly cheaper and easier 

than any other flight. Sun Country has changed the way I travel to DC and I am very pleased 

with their services and attention to safety. 

Sincerely, 

Kay Sparks
#### George M. COGGAN, Appellant, v. Sarah M. COGGAN, Appellee.

No. 71-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         552,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,462,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,273,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,683,750
<PP&E>                                       3,311,611
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,661,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,634,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,974,325
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,957
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,426,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,634,572
<SALES>                                      5,020,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,020,544
<CGS>                                        3,589,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,695,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,278,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,278,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,278,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.55)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11


                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings


NET LOSS PER SHARE
Net loss per share is calculated as follows:
(Unaudited, in thousands)
                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                 March 31,
                                                            1999          1998
                                                         ---------      -------

Net loss                                                 $  (3,602)     $(3,836)
                                                         =========      =======

BASIC:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding              9,956        2,116
                                                         =========      =======

     Net loss per common share                           $   (0.36)     $ (1.81)
                                                         =========      =======

DILUTED:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding              9,956        2,116
     Effect of dilutive securities:
        Convertible notes                                       --           --
        Stock options                                           --           --
        Warrants                                                --           --
                                                         ---------      -------
     Weighted average common and common
        equivalent shares outstanding                        9,956        2,116
                                                         =========      =======

     Net loss per common and common
        equivalent share                                 $   (0.36)     $ (1.81)
                                                         =========      =======

                                       21
#### Ernest H. GUISE and Frances C. Guise, his wife, Appellants, v. Clair O. SAXTON and Wilma W. Saxton, his wife, and Lacy E. Walton and Marie L. Walton, his wife, Appellees.

No. 2197.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
262 La. 1085

#### LIVINGSTON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. FIREMAN’S FUND AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 52667.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1972.

In re: J. C. Kerstens, d/b/a J. C. Kerstens & Associates applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston, 263 So.2d 356.

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 32.2

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, Steven M Caspers, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, (the Company), does hereby certify
that to his knowledge:

1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May
31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and

2. Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 11th
day of July, 2011.

|    |                                                             | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ STEVEN M CASPERS                                        | 
|    | Name: Steven
M Caspers                                      | 
|    | Title:
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer | 

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

25

---
#### Robert KEELEY and Charles French v. ESTATE of William McDANIELS, by Shirley Martin Fields, Admrx.

No. 50094.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

Donald W. Bond, Winona, for appellant.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Grenada County; Kermit R. Cofer, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Feo FOURTEEN
1 it fs

DEPARTMENT OF COMMEREE-BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
 OENSUS OF THE UNITED

Ne OF conPORATED PLAC.

EvuMeeaTED ey ne on THEA

STATES: 19:

Se ae

SuPeniisons Dist. NOW22ZZ

EnuteRaTion Desict Noda

ay Wano:0F crv 2

o
PJLATION

on > all
7 Lipitor

—efithigau.

Ipliual apa |

=

Historic census records:

by the National Archives and Records Administration, n

information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

ot the U.S. Census Bureau,
No. 00-6270.

#### Morgan *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          48,066
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,625
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,764
<PP&E>                                          20,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,527
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,724
<SALES>                                         20,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,199
<CGS>                                            2,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (426)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,385)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,419
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (23,223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.19)
        

</TABLE>
[ 38 ] 

NEW-YORK. 

_-!-;• i -� i � :'i1 -1 't � 1 J "l �-41 I " � "' .. D U TC HESS .;'J l9.: .J _.: � I . ]" . COUNTY- -:l •,. .. 1 � "' -I C-,i,wtl. 

t::-!i i "'1 ti i l-!� J ;J � :Ll� 

; {

Northeaft-Town 86 8o 34ot I

� Rhyncbeck 75 4a1 366

o Wafhington 116 1119 5 78 18 

.,; Gofhen 1011 59 211 244 93 

� Ncw-Com,nll 19o6 42 167 422,5 104 

t-e Havcrinw 16 �38 48s6 158 t l

Warwick 41 95 3&,3 63 

Orange-Town _ _,._1

_....,_.. 16 103 1175 u

Total, 1 960J18492 II 567 

1704 

l22 

1101 1112 

1035 1028 

744 749 

313S g 35 66g2

H4,5

31 455 

2148 133 ,.s94 

I ,54 6j 638j 466 I 

1411, lll 340 S't61 

93 

9

t 

57 

14 

182 

19 

65 

I 

75
#### Henry BELL v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49948.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 21, 1977.

Edwin C. Hardin, Leakesville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Scherry J. LeSieur, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Darwin M. Maples, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2** **SECTION 302    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, William J. Gervais, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on    Form 10-K    of Qualstar Corporation;     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(s) 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) [Paragraph (b) is omitted pursuant to SEC    Release Nos.    33-8238 and    34-47986]     (c) 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; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) 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(s) 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; and     (b) 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: September 28, 2006 /s/  WILLIAM    J. GERVAIS    William J. Gervais,    Principal Financial Officer
#### The SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Florida, Appellant, v. David L. REID, as Tax Assessor of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida, Appellees.

No. 71-697.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 24, 1972.

James M. Gann, of Jackson & Jackson, Palm Beach, for appellant.

Michael B. Small, Asst. County Atty., for Palm Beach County, Fla., West Palm Beach, for appellee Bd. of County Commr’s. of Palm Beach County, Fla.

John R. Beranek, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellee David Reid, as Tax Assessor of Palm Beach Co,, Fla.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Okaloosa County v. Okaloosa County School Board, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 295.

REED, C. J., and OWEN 'and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG v. SNELL ISLE HOMES.

No. 36519.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 199 So.2d 525.
#### Pat PROCACCI, Petitioner, v. CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, Florida, Respondent.

No. 43799.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 255.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Leroy WILLIAMS v. Joseph E. GILLEN, Clerk, District Court, Second District.

No. 38641.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
U.S. Department of 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 Office of the Secretary
of Transportation 

### March 10 , 2015

ERRATUM TO

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN

– Dated June 7 , 201 3

DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 20 13

- 0113

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no

additional co nfirming order will be issued in this matter).

In the Matter of the Joint Application of :

AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. (Aeromexico) and DELTA AIR LINES, INC. (Delta)

In Appendix C of the Notice of Action Taken dated June 7, 2013 , we inadvertently omitted certain standard language normally included in the conditions we impose on our approvals of code

- share arrangements under which a U.S.

carrier’s code will be displayed on flights operated by a foreign carrier partner . Accordingly, condition (c) of Appendix C, in the above referenced Notice of Action Tak en should read as follows:

(c) The code

- sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s regulations concerning code

- share arrangements that may be adopted. Notwithstanding any prov isions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such service in the computer reservation systems and el sewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation ( i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code

- share journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger; that the passenge r liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and that the operating carrier shall not permit the code of its U.S. code

- sharing partner to be carried on any flight that enters, departs, or transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the Fede ral

Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition;

Applicant representative s : John R. Mietus, Jr. (Aeromexico) , 202

- 747

- 5212; and Alexander Van der Bellen (Delta), 202

- 842

- 4184

DOT analyst: Brett D. Kruger , 202

- 366

- 8025

The above action was effective when taken: March 10 , 2015

Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch

, Director

Office of International Aviation

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.gov
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN WATSON,

Petitioner

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2017-1979

______________________ 

Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision in No. 

14-57399-A by Joseph M. Sharnoff.

______________________ 

SUA SPONTE

______________________ 

Before DYK, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

The government argues that we lack jurisdiction because this is a mixed case including discrimination 

claims. While petitioner submits that he abandoned his

discrimination claims, the court has determined that this

appeal still presents at least claims of violations of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Such 
2 WATSON v. BOP

appeals are known as mixed cases. Perry v. Merit Sys. 

Protection Bd., 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1979 (2017). The Supreme Court’s decision in Perry makes clear that, for

mixed cases, jurisdiction lies in district court, not in the 

Federal Circuit. Id. Therefore, we conclude that we lack 

jurisdiction and the transfer of this case is appropriate 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

This appeal is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

 FOR THE COURT

 June 12, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### Carmen REYES a/k/a Carmen Reyes Medina, Appellant, v. Antonio BETHENCOURT, Appellee.

No. 76-1882.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Manuel Vazquez, Miami, and Manuel Al-onso, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Hurley, Burnett, Banick & Knight and Fred R. Ober, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. See *Williams v. Board of Public Instruction of Flagler County,*61 So.2d 493 (Fla.1952); *Navison v. Winn and Lovett Tampa,*92 So.2d 531 (Fla.1957); *Berlanti Construction Co. v. Miami Beach Federal Savings and Loan Association,*183 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); *Kemper v. First National Bank of Dayton, Ohio,*277 So.2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); *Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v. Southern Florida Hotel and Motel Association,*294 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).