alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: June 2, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 2nd of June, 2010

Essential Air Service at

LAKE MINCHUMINA, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET OST-2008-0237

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

By Order 2010-5-13, May 11, 2010, we requested proposals for EAS at Lake Minchumina, 

Alaska, no later than June 10. By email dated June 2, 2010, Wright Air Service, Inc., 

requested an extension to June 17, to file a proposal.

We have decided to grant Wright’s request, as the additional amount of time is not 

unreasonable. All parties must now file competitive proposals for EAS at Lake 

Minchumina no later than June 17, 2010. 

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-5299

_____________________________

SEGWAYNE GOLDSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

February 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

 Appellant Segwayne Goldson appeals his judgment of 

conviction and sentence for sexual battery with physical force 

likely to cause serious injury and sexual battery. His appointed 

appellate counsel filed an Anders brief.1 Thereafter, counsel was 

ordered to file a supplemental brief addressing three issues 

identified by this court as potentially meritorious. Consideration 

of the arguments raised on appeal as well as our independent 

review of the record and applicable law has revealed no reversible 

 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and In re 

Order of First Dist. Court of Appeal Regarding Brief Filed in 

Forrester v. State, 556 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1990). 
2

error in the circuit court’s proceedings. Accordingly, the 

judgment of conviction and sentences are AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jonathan Dingus, Panama City, and Segwayne Goldson, pro se, 

for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**List of Subsidiaries**

AfriSpace Kenya Ltd.—Kenya 

AfriSpace, Inc.—Maryland, US 

AmeriSpace Ltd.—British Virgin Islands—Inactive 

AsiaSpace Limited—Australia

Asiaspace, Inc. —Maryland, US—Inactive 

PT WorldSpace Indonesia—Indonesia—Inactive 

Viatis Satellite Spain SA—Spain 

WorldSpace (China) Information Technology Ltd.—China 

WorldSpace ArgentinaSA—Argentina – Inactive 

WorldSpace Asia Pte Ltd.—Singapore 

WorldSpace Caribbean Limited—Trinidad and Tobago 

WorldSpace do Brasil—Brazil—Inactive 

WorldSpace Europe Holdings ApS—Denmark (formerly Viatis Satellite Radio Holdings ApS) 

WorldSpace Europe SAS, formerly Viatis Satellite Radio Europe SAS—France 

WorldSpace France—France 

WorldSpace Ghana Ltd.—Ghana—Inactive 

WorldSpace India Private Limited—India

WorldSpace Italia SpA—Italy 

WorldSpace Middle East FZCO—Bahrain 

WorldSpace Middle East FZCO—Dubai 

WorldSpace Polska Sp. zo.o.—Poland—Inactive 

WorldSpace Radio Company Ltd.—British Virgin Islands—Inactive 

WorldSpace Satellite Company—British Virgin Islands 

WorldSpace Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.—South Africa 

WorldSpace Systems Corporation (formerly WorldSpace Corporation and formerly WorldSpace Management Corporation)—Delaware, US 

WorldSpace UK Ltd.—United Kingdom 

XM Ventures Trust—Maryland—Inactive
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1910 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1910

 To extend for one year the authority of certain members of the Armed 
Forces and veterans to transfer unused Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
                      benefits to family members.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2011

Mr. Bartlett (for himself, Mr. Israel, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Harper, Mr. Al 
  Green of Texas, Mr. Kissell, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. 
   LoBiondo, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. West, and Mr. 
   Harris) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend for one year the authority of certain members of the Armed 
Forces and veterans to transfer unused Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
                      benefits to family members.

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

SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER UNUSED POST-9/11 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS TO FAMILY MEMBERS.

    (a) Expansion of Transfer Eligibility.--During the one-year period 
beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, a covered member shall be deemed to be an eligible 
individual under subsection (b) of section 3319 of title 38, United 
States Code, for purposes of such section.
    (b) Transfer and Use of Transferred Benefits.--Except as provided 
by subsection (a), the transfer and use of any entitlement to 
educational assistance under chapter 33 of title 38, United States 
Code, transferred pursuant to this section shall otherwise be carried 
out in accordance with section 3319 of such title to the maximum extent 
feasible.
    (c) Covered Member Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered 
member'' means an individual who--
            (1) is entitled to educational assistance under chapter 33 
        of title 38, United States Code; and
            (2) is--
                    (A) a member of the Armed Forces (including the 
                reserve components) who has completed an aggregate of 
                more than 10 years of active duty service; or
                    (B) a veteran who served an aggregate of more than 
                10 years of active duty service.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 (TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS LOGO) Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Thomas M. Brandt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
of TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.Date: November 15, 2004 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.
Exhibit 32.1          Certification.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Proton Laboratories, Inc. pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C.
63.

I, Edward Alexander, the Chief Executive Officer of Proton Laboratories, Inc.
hereby certify that Proton Laboratories, Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10-QSB
and the financial statements contained therein fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report
on Form 10-QSB and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
of Proton Laboratories, Inc.

Date:  May 19, 2004
(signed)  _______________________
Edward  Alexander
/s/  Edward  Alexander
Chief  Executive  Officer  of
Proton Laboratories, Inc.

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


<PAGE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20364 S u m m ary C al en da r
RI TALEM O N S. I ndivi dua l l y, do i ng bus i ne s s a s Expe r t s Ar e U s I nc , do i ng b u sine ss a s E xp erts A re U s M ed i ca lE q u i p m en t, do i n g b u sine ss a s E xp erts A r e U s L o v e ly ’ s H o m e C a r e , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. PA LM ET TO GBA ; NATI ONAL S UPP LI ER C LE ARI NGH OUSE; CHOI CE P O IN T C O M M E R C IA L S P E C IA L IS T S ; P A M E L AG A D S O N , In d iv id u a lly a n dI n t h e Ca p a c i t yo f Ap p l i c a t i o n P r o c e s s o r/An a l y s i s ; M ARK P ORTE R, I n d iv i d u a l l ya n dI n t h e C a p a c i t yo f a n I n s p e c t o r ; A DMI NI S T RA T I ON CENTER S F OR M EDI CARE AND M EDI CAI D S ERVI CE; ADM I NI S TA R; T ANYA M AT T I NGLY ; E RI KAW I L L I AMS ; B RIAN BA NKS ; MARL I N KI NG; S H A N N AG O L D S B O R O U G H ; A L O N Z O C U E L L A R ; K IM B E R L YD R A K E , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V

- 715

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * The j udg m e nto f

t he di s t r i c tc o ur t i s af f i r m e d. Appe l l antfai l s t o s ho w a ny groun d of

su bj ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on in federalcourtf or her m an y com pl ai n t s.

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20364 Document: 00511023028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 20364 S u m m ary C al en da r

2 A pp el l an tL e m o n s h as no stand i n g t o com pl ai n of t h e revocat i on of

a sup pl i er num berof

E xper t s A r e U s. N orh as she show n t hatE xper t s A r e U s w oul d have
a l eg a lri gh t of

ap p ea lan dacce ss to fed era lcou rt. A F F IR M E D
. Case: 09-20364 Document: 00511023028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010
|     1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,      2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Segway IV Corp., Inc. |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 4, 2008                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Donnie      Smith                                                    |
| Donnie      SmithCheif      Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer |
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

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 BidGive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James P. Walker, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ James P. Walker, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 21, 2007
#### LUCKETT v. ADOLPHUS CLEANERS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 6, 1953.

James A. Crumlin, Louisville, for appellant.

Louis Garlove, Louisville, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Justice.

On this appeal the appellant, Joseph Luckett, insists the trial court erred in *192granting a peremptory instruction in favor of the appellees, Adolphus Cleaners and Yale Cleaners. We think the court reached the right conclusion, although we do not agree with the reason given for his action.

In July, 1949, Luckett left a Panama hat with the Adolphus Cleaners to have it cleaned and blocked. Adolphus Cleaners sent the hat to Yale Cleaners to have the service performed. Luckett began wearing his hat after he got it hack from Adol-phus Cleaners. Four or'five days later his forehead became blistered and discolored where it came in contact with the hat band. Luckett consulted a physician, who advised him to stop wearing the hat. He took the hat to the Industrial Testing Laboratories, which was operated by Dr. William Lenz, to have i't analyzed. In a letter to Luckett, Dr. Lenz reported his finding as follows: “Discoloration of skin is due to oxalic acid, crystals of which were found in the hat band, and which were not thoroughly washed out after cleaning.” Dr. Lenz died prior to the trial. The trial court refused to permit Dr. Lenz’s statement, a copy of which was in his office files, to be introduced in evidence.

The report of Dr. Lenz’s analysis was admissible. Ward v. Music, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 516. This does not mean, however, that we think the judgment should be reversed, as is contended by Luckett.

 We think Luckett failed to prove his case, because it was incumbent upon him to prove that the appellees were negligent. It may be that someone breached a duty to him, but to maintain his cause of action it was necessary that he show the appellees breached this duty. Dr. Lenz's report showed that the hat band was in a dangerous condition. There was no evidence, however, showing that the appellees caused, or knew of, this dangerous condition. How the oxalic acid got on the hat band is not shown. It may have been on the hat band when the hat was taken to Adolphus Cleaners, or it may have been placed thereon after the hat was returned to Luckett. As a matter of fact the owner of Yale Cleaners, who was called as a witness for Luckett, testified that oxalic acid was not used in the Yale cleaning plant.

In the absence of proof to show that the appellees caused the acid to be on the hat band, or had knowledge that it was there, it was only through speculation that the jury could have determined they were negligent. To sustain a cause of action there must be direct or circumstantial evidence, based upon facts which would authorize a jury to make a finding without indulging in speculation. Magness’ Adm’x v. Hutchinson, 274 Ky. 226, 117 S.W.2d 1041; Fishman v. Henry Fischer Packing Co., Ky., 244 S.W.2d 456.

For the reasons given the judgment is affirmed.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Bell , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3104.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -3104
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v . B ELL , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Bell , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3104.] Court of appeals’ judgment r eversed on the authority of State v. Harper

. (No. 2018-1537―Submitted May 13, 2020―Decided May 29, 2020.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals fo r Franklin County, No. 17AP-645,
2018-Ohio-3576.

_________________ {¶ 1} On the authority of State v. Harper , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio2913, __ N.E.3d __, the judgment of the court of appeals is rev ersed to the extent
that it remanded the case to the trial court to correct the ent ry imposing postrelease
control.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Seth Gil bert, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney , for appellant, s tate of Ohio.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 _________________
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2155 

To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Unit P16. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2011 

Mr. MACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Unit P16. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map included in the set of 

6 maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’ re7 ferred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

8 Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to Unit P16 in Flor9 ida is hereby replaced by another map relating to the same 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2155 IH

1 unit entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

2 System Corrected Unit P16’’ and dated llll. 

3 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

4 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

5 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

6 the section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

7 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-147139 onForm S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-132065 on Form S-8 of ourreport dated March 2, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. andsubsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of Financial AccountingStandards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB StatementNo. 109* on January 1, 2007, and Statement of FinancialAccounting Standard No. 157, *Fair ValueMeasurements* on January 1, 2008), and on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2008.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte &  Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Parsippany, New Jersey              |   |
| March 2, 2009                       |   |

 

1

----
#### Carl O. SCHMIDT, Wright Hugus and Albert W. Laas, Copartners under the Firm Name of Schmidt, Hugus & Laas, and Joseph S. Auerbach, Edward Cornell, Nicholas F. Lenssen, Martin A. Schenck, Harold C. McCollom, Sydney G. Soons, Louis F. Schwartz, Jr., Julien T. Davies, William J. Carr, Orrin G. Judd and Edwin Guest, Copartners under the Firm Name of Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, Appellants, v. PAN HANDLE TRACTION COMPANY and Robert Hazlett, Trustee, Appellees.

No. 4186.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 5, 1937.

Albert W. Laas and Wright Hugus, both of Wheeling, W. Va., and Louis F. Schwartz, Jr., of New York City, for appellants.

Edmund L. Jones and Kent B. Hall, both of Wheeling, W. Va., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Order filed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 July 29, 2014

p0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

149037

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149037

COA: 319491 

Oakland CC: 2012-243943-FC

GREGORY JEROME MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.