alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: OCTOBER 23, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF PAZ AVIATION, INC. DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0807 (Civil Penalty Action)


### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 1bis proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011S0190272) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.

# ---~-··![2····-·-· --.

# ·~ ;··/·..--···.

## ~

····-.

### ·~

# --·**~/~** Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative LawJud e _./ 

### _ _.._ ........--···:-·---··.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1
Paz Aviation Inc., Respondent c/o Jay Allen, President 7455 W 2nd Court Hialeah, FL 33014-4301 ONE COPY

David M. McDonald, Respondent's Counsel McDonald & McDonald Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 669122-9428 Miami, FL 33135-2321 TEL: 305-643-5313 FAX: 305-643-4990 William Vines, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Southern Region 1701 Columbia Avenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 ·TEL: 202-366-6941

FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0807 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
#### Benedict A. SILVERMAN, Petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR, Respondent.

No. 40564.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 12, 1971.

Benedict A. Silverman, in pro. per.

George L. Knight, Miami, for The Florida Bar, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for reinstatement to membership in The Florida Bar.

The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, in acting on this petition, stated:

> “Upon consideration of the referee’s report and record, the referee’s findings and recommendations were confirmed by the Board of Governors. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Benedict A. Silverman, be reinstated to membership in good standing in The Florida Bar.”

The recommendation of the Board of Governors is hereby adopted as the judgment of this Court. Petitioner is hereby reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0291

_________________ CITY OF RED LODGE,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. EUGENE TIMOTHY RODMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Eugene Timo thy Rodman, to all counsel of r ecord , and to the H onorable Matthew J. Wald , D istrict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 18 2020

11/18/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0291
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                        AMERICAN COIN MERCHANDISING, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

          
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended
                                                                               June 30,                    June 30,
                                                                         1998           1997          1998            1997
                                                                         ----           ----          ----            ----
<S>                                                                   <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>       
     Net earnings ...............................................     $1,373,000     $  884,000     $2,558,000     $1,765,000
                                                                      ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

     Common shares outstanding at beginning of period ...........      6,467,903      5,284,923      6,452,904      5,123,274

          Effect of shares issued during the period .............            857        108,840         10,121        199,401
                                                                      ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

     Basic weighted average common shares .......................      6,468,760      5,393,763      6,463,025      5,322,675

     Incremental shares from assumed conversions:

          Stock options .........................................        177,774         52,774        170,506         27,239
          Warrants ..............................................         31,572          5,274         30,121             --
                                                                      ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

     Diluted weighted average common shares .....................      6,678,106      5,451,811      6,663,652      5,349,914
                                                                      ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

          Basic earnings per share ..............................     $     0.21     $     0.16     $     0.40     $     0.33

          Diluted earnings per share ............................     $     0.21     $     0.16     $     0.38     $     0.33

</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2339

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Santiago Espinoza-Rodriguez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 18, 2011 Filed: March 10, 2011

___________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Santiago Espinoza-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, in vi olation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. In so doing, he also admitted to violating the terms and c onditions of his supervised release imposed as a result of an earlier 2008 conviction for illegal reentry. On May 25, 2010, the district court 1 conducted a sentencing hearing a nd sentenced Espinoza-Rodriguez to twenty-one months' imprisonment on the new reentry charge and five months' imprisonment on the supervised release viol ation, to run consecutively. Espinoza--2- Rodriguez appeals this sentence, arguing thatthe district court procedurally erred in failing to accord proper weight to several aggravating a nd mitigating factors and that this procedural error resulted in a subs tantively unreasonable sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38 (2007). More specifically, Espinoza-Rodriguez claims that the districtcourt abused its discretion by giving too much weight to his criminal history and not enough weight to the mitigating factors in his case, including: (1) the detrimental impact his incarceration will have on his family, who he was supporting; (2) the eviden ce in the record indicating that he has been substantially free of criminal activity since his last serious felony in 2005; and (3) the reality that twenty-six months is mo re than twice the length of his longest prior sentence. We disagree.
As the sentencing transcript reveals, the district court sentenced EspinozaRodriguez on both the new conviction and the vi olation of his supervised release after thoroughly considering all of the § 3553(a) factors, including Espinoza-Rodriguez's lengthy criminal history, his work history, and his efforts to support his family. Consequently, we can discern no procedural error. See United States v. Battiest , 553 F.3d 1132, 1135–36 (8th. Cir. 2009). We also can discern no substantive error in the final sentence. The district court senten ced Espinoza-Rodriguez within the applicable guideline ranges, and as such, we may and do presume that his sentence is reasonable. United States v. Hoffman , 626 F.3d 993, 998 (8th Cir. 2010) . Here, there is nothing in the record sufficient to overcome this presumption of reasonableness, especially since Espinoza-Rodriguez deci ded to reenter this country while still on supervised release from his last conviction of illegal reentry. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
#### Leonard DAMRON, Appellant, v. OCALA STAR-BANNER COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and Loyal Phillips, Individually, Appellees.

No. Q-215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 1972.

Wallace Dunn, Ocala, for appellant.

Harold B. Wahl, of Loftin & Wahl, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Damron appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellee-newspaper. This cause has been the subject matter of protracted litigation. Damron initially recovered a judgment in his action for libel against the Ocala Star-Banner. This Court sustained the judgment appealed. 221 So.2d 459 (1 Fla.App.1969). The Federal Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. 401 U.S. 295, 91 S.Ct. 628, 28 L.Ed.2d 57 (1971). The trial judge found in the summary judgment now appealed that the Federal Supreme Court:

> “. . . has held that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, plaintiff must prove ‘with convincing clarity’ that defendants ran the story with express malice, i. e., ‘the publication was deliberately falsified, or published recklessly despite the publisher’s awareness of probable falsity’ . . .

> “There is no evidence here that would take the case to the jury under that standard . . .”

We have studied at length the record developed in this cause, as well as the Federal Supreme Court’s decisions in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy,1401 U.S. 265, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.*2922d 35 (1971); and Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971).

Apparently, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure is without recourse when the news media, without proof of “express malice” of “convincing clarity,” chooses to publish defamatory falsehoods about such public figure. Thus, we are compelled to affirm the judgment appealed.

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, J J., concur.

1

. Also see, Constitutional Aspects of Libel and Slander — Supreme Court Cases, 28 L.Ed.2d 885 (1972).
The Ho norable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3169

_____________ Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & * Warehouse Workers Union Pension * Fund, a pension trust; George Ossey; * Tony Cullotta; John Broderick; * William H. Carpenter, the present * trustees, * * Appellees, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Brotherhood Labor Leasing, a Missouri * corporation; MFI Leasing Company, a * [UNPUBLISHED] Missouri corporation; Falls City * Industries, Inc., a Kentucky * corporation; Middlewest Freightways, * Inc., a Missouri corporation, * * Appellants. *

_____________ Submitted: March 9, 1998 Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________ BeforeBOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, an d MONTGOMERY, District Judge. 1

_____________The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Mag istriate Judge for the Eastern 2 Districtof Missouri, acting pursuant to the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C

. § 636(c). -2- PER CURIAM. D e fendants appeal the summary judgment entered against them by the District Court awarding plaintiffs interim payments of withdra wal liability under the Employee 2 Retirement Income Security Act of 1980. The judgment is based on the court' s determination that defendants were under common control with Be-Mac T ransport, Inc. on the date of Be-Mac's complete withdrawal from the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Pension Fund. Having considered the briefs, the record, and the arguments of the parties, w e concludethat the judgment of the District Court is correct. No error of law appears, and an opin ion would add nothing of substance to the thorough and well-writte n opinions of the District Court. Accordingly, we forego extended discussion. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 41860 & 41941

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

TYLER JAMES LEWIS

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 735

Filed: September 23, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey , District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , and concurrent unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for two counts of burglary

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Gener al; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 41860, Tyler James Lewis pled guilty to one count of burglary . I.C.

§§ 18

- 1401, 18

- 1403. The district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of six years, with a

minimum peri od of confinement of three years . In Docket No. 41941, Lewis pled guilty to one

count of burglary. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The

dist rict court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of

confinement of three years, to run concurrent with his other burglary sentence. Lewis filed

I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, which the district court de nied. Lewis appeals.2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Ida ho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lewis ’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,035,871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  286,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,343
<INVENTORY>                                  1,401,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,636,228
<PP&E>                                      42,454,079
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,804,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,486,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,644,924
<BONDS>                                     12,197,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       24,575,522
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     999,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,575,284
<SALES>                                     51,926,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,926,970
<CGS>                                       18,017,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,017,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,361,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             940,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                498,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            412,361
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   412,361
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.4


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO


EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is effective as of November 1, 2022, by and between
PetVivo Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and John Dolan (the “Executive” and
together with the Company, each a “Party,” and collectively the “Parties.”)


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into that certain Executive Employment Agreement dated as of November 10, 2021 (as the same now exists or may hereafter
be amended, modified, supplemented, renewed, restated, or replaced, the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company conducted its
annual performance and compensation review of the Executive and approved an increase to Executive’s Base Salary.


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to modify the Employment Agreement to reflect the salary increase as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1. Definitions.
Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term as set forth in the Employment
Agreement, and all references to Sections, shall mean the Sections of the Employment Agreement unless reference is made to another
document.


 


2. Amendment
to Employment Agreement. Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended such that the Executive’s Base Salary
is increased from $210,000 to $230,000.


 


3. Full
Force and Effect. Except as specifically amended, modified, or supplemented by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement, as
amended, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


4. Governing
Law. The Parties expressly agree that (a) this Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the
State of Minnesota, without giving effect to any conflict-of-law principles and (b) Section 8.2 of the Employment Agreement shall
apply to any dispute hereunder.


 


5. Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any
electronic signature) or other commonly recognized transmission method and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been
duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ John Dolan
	 	 	John Dolan
	 	 
	 	PETVIVO HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Robert J. Folkes
	 	 	Robert J. Folkes,
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
#### Eugene O. BERNARD, Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Florida, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. R-318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Harry Katz, Jr., of Katz & Katz, Jacksonville, for appellant.

T. Edward Austin and William Lee Allen, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment holding that that part of a City of Jacksonville ordinance regulating mobile signs is constitutional and dissolving the temporary injunction previously issued against its enforcement.

Our examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral arguments submitted by the parties indicate that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the judgment appealed herein. The same is accordingly affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Page 122

EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                     CONE MILLS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                                                                                     Percentage
                                                                           State or                   of Voting
                                                                        Jurisdiction of              Securities
               Name                              Address                 Incorporation                 Owned
-----------------------------------          -----------------          ----------------            --------------

<S>                                          <C>                        <C>                             <C>
Cone Mills (Mexico), S.A.                    Mexico City                Mexico, D.F.                    100   %
  de C.V.

Comercializadora Cone Mills,                 Mexico City                Mexico, D.F.                    100
  S.A. de C.V.

Cone Mills (Europe) S.A.                     Zaventem, Belgium          Brussels, Belgium               100

Cone Singapore, PTE., Ltd.                   Singapore                  Republic of Singapore           100

Cone Foreign Sales                           Greensboro, NC             Barbados                        100
  Corporation

Cone Mills International                     Greensboro, NC             North Carolina                  100
  Corporation

Cone Global Finance Corp.                    San Francisco, CA          California                      100

CIPCO S.C., Inc.                             Carlisle, SC               Delaware                        100

Cornwallis Development Co.                   Greensboro, NC             North Carolina                  100

Boelas Pipeline                              Greensboro, NC             Louisiana                       100
  Corporation

Cliffside Railroad                           Cliffside, NC              North Carolina                   98
  Company

House 'N Home Fabrics                        New York, NY               New York                        100
  and Draperies, Inc.

Cone Receivables, LLC                        Greensboro, NC             Delaware                        100

Cone Foreign Trading, LLC                    Greensboro, NC             North Carolina                  100
</TABLE>