alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DIXIE LIME & STONE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. WHITAKER BROTHERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 1-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 19, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1968.

*336Sturgis & Ritter, Ocala, for appellant.

Hayward H. Davis, Lake Placid, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant and from the order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment.

The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, raises three questions in its brief, each of which questions are prefaced with the same statement, to wit: “Was the evidence insufficient for the jury and did the Court err * * *?”

The file, with the respective briefs, are voluminous and very comprehensive as to all the facts and figures. We have carefully reviewed this file after hearing oral argument of respective counsel, and have come to the conclusion and do so hold, that the material controversy here is one of fact and not of law; that the trial court has correctly analyzed the computations of the respective items or claims for and against each party in arriving at its final judgment. That the sufficiency of the evidence and credibility of witnesses was strictly for the jury and there appearing to us to have been sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to support the verdict of the jury, as reduced by the trial court, we, as an appellate court will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury.

Finding no error to exist, we do affirm the judgment and order appealed from.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 15.1 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

**To the Board of Directors**

**Comtech Group, Inc.:**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statement (No. 333-144326) on Form S-8 of Comtech Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Comtech Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Comtech Group, Inc. and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in theannual report. 

Our report dated March 14, 2008, on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,contains an explanatory paragraph which states that the Company acquired Keen Awards Limited (the “Acquired Company”) on August 1, 2007, and management excluded from its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2007 the Acquired Company’s internal control over financial reporting associated with total assets representing approximately 4% of total consolidated assets and less than 4% of consolidated net salesof the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of the Company also excluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of the Acquired Company.

**KPMG**

Hong Kong, China 

March 14, 2008
**MEMORANDUM**

Date: February

15 , 2012 Subject: Stakeholder call about MOVES Transition for Regional Conformity Anal yses From: Meg Patulski, State Measures and Transportation Planning Center , OTAQ To: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0393 On March 2 , 201 1 , a conference call was held to discuss stakeholder concerns regarding the transition to using MOVES for regional conformity anal ys es . EPA ’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality hosted the call as a follow - up to a previous call held in October 2010 with s tate and local transportation agencies. Inaddition to EPA, the following agencies were represented on the conference call:  MPOs from the following metropolitan areas: Houston - Galveston , TX; Dallas - Fort Worth, TX; Atlanta, GA; and Washington, DC  State DOTs from: Texas, New York, Virginia , Michigan, and Maryland  Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO)  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)  Federal Highway

Administration These ag encies confirmed that their previous concerns regarding the transition to using MOVES2010a for regional conformity anal ys es were still impacting their ability to complete MOVES - based modeling by March 2, 2012 , and they requested additional transition time for using MOVES in regional conformity anal ys es . EPA expressed its intentions to proceed with a rulemaking to extend the MOVES2010 regional conformity

analy sis grace period . All agencies strongl y supported EPA’s decision to proceed with this rulemaking.
Exhibit 31(d)

                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark E. Maddocks, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dataram Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  July 26, 2004              MARK E. MADDOCKS
                                   ______________________________

                                   Mark E. Maddocks
                                   Vice President, Finance
                                   (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 30, 2018

s1022

Order 

Clerk

October 30, 2018

157091

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157091

COA: 338899

Wayne CC: 10-010389-FC

VINCENT LeCURTIS MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2017 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50951

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EMILY PADILLA-TRUJILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-97-CR-365-2-B

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Emily Padilla-Trujillo appeals her sentence after pleading

guilty to conspiracy to import marijuana, importation of

marijuana, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 

Padilla-Trujillo argues that because she was a mere courier of

marijuana, her offense level should have been downwardly adjusted

for her mitigating role in the offense. She points to the 
No. 97-50951

-2-

guideline commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 which states that the

downward adjustment for a minimal participant would be

appropriate “in a case where an individual was recruited as a

courier for a single smuggling transaction involving a small

amount of drugs.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.2). She argues that this

court’s rejection of that commentary in United States v.

Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1989) can no longer stand

after the Supreme Court’s subsequent opinion in Stinson v. United

States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), in which the Court held that the

guideline commentary is binding.

Padilla-Trujillo’s argument that Buenrostro is no longer

good law after Stinson is without merit. The commentary does not

require a downward adjustment for couriers, but only states that

such an adjustment “would be appropriate.” § 3B1.2, comment.

(n.2). Nothing in Stinson’s holding that guideline commentary is

binding would prevent a district court from determining that the

adjustment is not appropriate under the facts of the particular

case. In this case, the district court’s determination was not

clearly erroneous, because the amount of marijuana, 115 pounds,

or 52.48 kilograms, was not small. See United States v. Hare,

150 F.3d 419, 427-28 (5th Cir. 1998) (50 pounds of marijuana not

a small amount).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SP Bancorp, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    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
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 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: May 16, 2011

/s/
Jeffrey WeaverJeffrey WeaverPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Miriam G. BROOKMYER, as Administratrix of the Estate of Hannah Goldshlag, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-1282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1915 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1915

To permit health insurance issuers to offer additional plan options to 
                              individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 13, 2014

  Mr. Flake (for himself and Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit health insurance issuers to offer additional plan options to 
                              individuals.

    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 ``Removing Limitations on Insurance 
Effectiveness and Flexibility Act of 2013'' or the ``ReLIEF Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO OFFER ADDITIONAL PLAN OPTIONS.

    (a) Catastrophic Plans.--Notwithstanding title I of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), a catastrophic 
plan as described in section 1302(e) of such Act shall be deemed to be 
a qualified health plan (including for purposes of receiving tax 
credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
cost-sharing assistance under section 1402 of this Act), except that 
for purposes of enrollment in such plans, the provisions of paragraph 
(2) of such section 1302(e) shall not apply.
    (b) Individual Mandate.--Coverage under a catastrophic plan under 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be minimum essential coverage for 
purposes of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
#### John GOTTO, Petitioner, v. SEMINOLE TRANSPORT LINES and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44622.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Miscellaneous
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.53 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, DEC. 20, 2011 New Features on Census Bureau Internet Home Page In an effort to improve navigation, improve ease of use and make statistics more discoverable, the U.S. Census Bureau today launched new features on the census.gov home page. Users will now see an economic dashboard with key indicators generated by the Census Bureau prominently located on the upper right. Visitors will also find a new interactive map that shows in-depth business and demographic information for the nation, states and counties. There will also be a “Stat of the Day” highlighting Census Bureau statistics. Navigation has also been improved by grouping links into themes. Those familiar with the features and links such as QuickFacts and the 2010 Population Finder will still find them on the new home page along with a feedback button to provide comments on their overall experience with the new design. This is the first step in a series of improvements to the census.gov website that will be made over the coming year. More details will be made available at a later date. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary Foxx: 

We write today seeking a timely resolution in granting an application filed for a slot exemption 

to allow continued nonstop service from Lansing, Michigan (LAN) to Washington D.C. (DCA). 

With Sun Country no longer servicing this route, a quick decision is crucial to ensure a lapse in 

service is as short as possible. 

There are a number of ways in which this route benefits Michiganders, chief among them is 

increased economic activity and connectivity. A recent assessment of the economic impacts by 

Trillion Aviation, Inc. found that continued service would have positive economic benefit of up 

to $16 million annually on the airport and surrounding region. 

In addition, Lansing is the seat of the Michigan government and East Lansing is home to one of 

the nation's leading research universities. This transportation line is essential in connecting these 

centers of activity to the nation's capital in a quick and efficient manner. 

Thank you again for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any 

questions regarding this request. 

Member of Congress 

Moolenaar 

ember of Congress 

Sincerely, 

Tim alberg 

Member of Congress
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1
                                  ------------


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Amcast Industrial Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated October
16, 1997, included in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of Amcast
Industrial Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Amcast Industrial
Corporation listed in item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to Registration Statement Number 33-2876 on Form S-8 dated November 27,
1987, in Registration Statement Number 33-18690 on Form S-8 dated December 21,
1987, in Registration Statement Number 33-28080 on Form S-8 dated April 11,
1989, in Registration Statement Number 33-28084 on Form S-8 dated April 11,
1989, in Registration Statement Number 33-38176 on Form S-8 dated December 20,
1990, in Registration Statement Number 33-28075 on Form S-3 dated April 11,
1989, in Registration Statement Number 33-61290 on Form S-8 dated April 19,
1993,and in Registration Statement Number 333-00133 on Form S-8 dated January
10, 1996, of our report dated October 16, 1997, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included
in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Amcast Industrial Corporation and
subsidiaries.




/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------

November 21, 1997
Dayton, Ohio

                                       54
# C_2013138EN.01000601.xml

| 17.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6913 — DP World/Goodman/DP World Asia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 138/02

On 8 May 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6913. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6913. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---