alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1941
BEATRICE DOWNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia Hospitals; WANDA MILLER; COURTNEY COSBY; ELAINE WALKER, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-94-862) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beatrice Downs, App ellant Pro Se. David Lee Ross, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, Richmond, Virginia; Pamela Finley Boston, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Downs v. Commonwealth of Virginia , No. CA-94-862 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-562-000]


Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2000, Clear Creek Storage 
Company, L.L.C. (Clear Creek) tendered for filing its explanation of 
why it is not feasible for Clear Creek to comply with Order No. 587-L.
    Clear Creek states that since it does not impose of imbalance 
penalty provisions, implementation of Order No. 587-L is not necessary 
on its system.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26684 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                        STERLING BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                           March 31,
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                      2001             2000
                                                   ----------       ----------

<S>                                                <C>              <C>
Net income                                         $4,536,285       $3,878,559
Less: preferred dividends                              24,783           20,987
                                                   ----------       ----------
Net income available for common shareholders
  and adjusted for diluted computation             $4,511,502       $3,857,572
                                                   ==========       ==========



Weighted average common shares outstanding          9,092,275        9,181,647
Add dilutive effect of:
    Stock options                                     321,110           88,046
    Convertible preferred stock                       237,878          241,883
                                                   ----------       ----------
Adjusted for assumed diluted computation            9,651,263        9,511,576
                                                   ==========       ==========


Basic earnings per share                           $     0.50       $     0.42
                                                   ==========       ==========
Diluted earnings per share                         $     0.47       $     0.41
                                                   ==========       ==========
</TABLE>


                                       29
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

HENRY PAUL
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 647

[September 3, 2014 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara McCarthy

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 10

- 14696CF10B and 11

- 4431CF10A

.

Henry Paul, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela E. Noble, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P E R C URIAM

.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant claims that he received consecutive youthful offender sentences which exceed the six

- year statutory cap and which are illegal und er Allen v. State , 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1988). He also claims that his written sentence is inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement in some unspecified way. We conclude that “review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the record.” Johnson

v. State , 60 So. 3d 1045, 1051 n.2 (Fla. 2011); see also Williams v. State

, 957 So. 2d 60 0, 604 (Fla. 2007) (holding that the movant has the burden of demonstrating an entitlement to relief in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding).

Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to file a sworn and sufficient rule 3.850 motion within the time remaining under the rule or to file a rule 3.800(a) motion that demonstrates an entitlement to relief

from the face of the record.2

W ARNER
, M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### Regulatory Evaluation Docket No . F AA - Directorate Identifier : 

### 2015 -CE- 023 -AD 

## If

you make changes to the values in the table below , you must enszn·e the totals update accordingly. 

## If they do not , click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. Estimated Costs: Acti o n Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance) (e .g . , Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost T otal Costs Number of T otal Cost

replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u .s . for U.S. Fleet Do n ot include on cond ition costs here access , testing, (@$85/h parts) Regi s tered and cl ose-up) our) Products Part I: Modify 1.0 $10 

### 2 8

The known number of products in compliance : 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for 

### U . S . fleet: $2,660 Costs cover ed under warranty (if known) $ On - Condition Co s ts: 

# G Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e .g., Inspecti on, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing , and close - replacement) up) Part I: Preflight 

### 0 . 1 $0 security check Part II : Inspection 

### 1.0 $0 

### Special considerations for E conomic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) : Bas i c warranty 

### 7

### for up to 0.5 hours plus parts is provided for Part I modification. Part I preflight security check is an allowed option in the SB and AD for up to 10 hours prior to incorporation of Part I modification. Part II inspection is required every 50 hours until terminating action is prov ided by Piper, but the frequency and cost will depend on the owner 

### I op erator aircraft usage. Executive Order 12866: 

### Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory actio n " ? 

## @ YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedu res : 

### Is the AD s ign ificant? 

# @ YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

### Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Exp lain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# @ YES D

**NO~** 

### Explanation : Intrastate Avi a tion in Alaska: 

### Thi s AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. 

### Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircr aft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportat ion? 

## @ YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation:



### 8
Order entered January 6, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00508-CR

COLIN TYLER WOMACK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-82490-2021

ORDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED, and 

we ORDER the brief received January 4, 2023, FILED as of the date of this order.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
# Fourth Cour t of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 28, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00267

- CR

John Marshall LEE, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 00

- 0495

- CR
Honorable Gus J. Strauss, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record, which was filed in this appeal on April 29, 2019, does not contain a trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). On May 3, 2019 , we ordered that the trial court cause the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certification by May 23, 2019. On May 23, 2019

, the trial court clerk

notified this court that the supplemental clerk’s record will be late du e to appellant’s attorney’s

failure to file a trial court certification of the defendant’s right to appeal. The trial court clerk noted that appellant’s attorney indicated that the trial court certification will be signed and filed

soon. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant ’s attorney provide the trial court clerk with a signed trial court certification of the defendant’s right to appeal within twenty days from the date

of this order. It is further ORDERED that the trial court cause the trial court cle rk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a trial court certification within ten days from the date the

trial court clerk receives the signed trial court certification of the defendant’s right to appeal.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of May, 2019

.___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
8/10/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­0587

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­0587

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Monday, August 10, 2015 2:02 PM

To: marc.camera@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Wiercioch:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015−0587).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove

closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested

response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/24/2015. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­9677.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
_____________ No. 96-1942MN

_____________ Jacqueline A. Sundholm, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. Shirley Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 7, 1997 Filed: February 26, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Jacqueline A. Sundholm appeals the d istrict court's grant of summary judg ment affirming the Social Security Commissioner's decision to den y Sundholm's application for disability insurance benefits. After careful review of the administrative record, we conclude the administrative la w judge properly assess ed the medical opinions and carefully considered the combinedeffect of Sundholm's impairments. We find substantial evidence supports the decision of the Commissioner that Sundholm is not disabled fo r Social Security purpo ses. We affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Stephan Co. (the
"Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank F. Ferola, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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/ Frank F. Ferola
__________________________________
Frank F. Ferola
Chief Executive Officer
September 30, 2005
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 29, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00767-CR

WILLIAM EDWARD ERICKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1286119

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant William Edward Erickson appeals his conviction for murder. On 

original submission, appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence in the 

record to support the court’s costs of $339 reflected in the judgment. We agreed 

and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs

assessed. Erickson v. State, No. 14-12-00767-CR; 2013 WL 6405476 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 5, 2013) vacated and remanded, No. PD-1709-13; 2014 

WL 1512969 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals 
2

vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 

S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The judgment includes an assessment of $339 in court costs. A supplemental 

clerk’s record was filed, which contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $339

in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if 

there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence 

offered at trial to prove each cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d at 390. Traditional 

sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by 

the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment 

for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 

arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record supports the assessment of costs in this case 

because the record contains a bill of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed 

by a representative of the district clerk’s office who is entitled to receive payment 

of the costs, and is certified. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. 

The trial court assessed $339 in costs against appellant. The sum of the 

itemized costs in the cost bill is $339. There being no challenge to any specific cost 

or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs 

assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared 

until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill 

of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not 

be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after 

a criminal trial.”).
3

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATIONS 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 Sunair Electronics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
16, 2005 (the Report), I, Synnott B. Durham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge: 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/ Synnott B. DurhamSynnott B. DurhamTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2005
 - 25 -
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                         AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                  THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
                                       AND
                           BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES, INC.,
                        EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 15, 1996
                          RE: HARVARD CASE NO: 1194-95
                                 (THE "LICENSE")

Article 1.11, the definition of "PATENT RIGHTS," shall be amended to read as
follows: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/552,584 filed November 3, 1995
entitled "Dopamine Transporter Imaging Agents," the U.S. Patent Application
Serial No. 60/133,761 filed May 12, 1999 entitled "Dopamine Transporter Imaging
Agents," the U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/568,106 filed May 10, 2000,
entitled "Dopamine Transporter Imaging Agents," the U.S. Patent Application
Serial No. 60/313,205 filed August 17, 2001, entitled "Therapeutic Tropane
Compounds," and the U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/222,530 filed August
16, 2002, entitled "Therapeutic Tropane Compounds," and any foreign (Non-U.S.)
counterparts including continuations, divisions or extensions and all patents
which issue therefrom in any country. It also includes continuations-in-part of
the above-listed applications for which Drs. Alun Jones, Bertha Madras, Ashfaq
Mahood, Alan Davison, Peter Meltzer, Paul Blundell and/or Alan Fischman are
legally listed among the inventive entity and any foreign (Non-U.S.)
counterparts including continuations, divisions or extensions and all patents
which issue therefrom in any country.

All other terms and conditions of the License shall remain unchanged. This
amendment shall become effective on April 1, 2007.

BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES, INC.              PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS
                                        OF HARVARD COLLEGE
                                        Office of Technology Development


/s/ Kenneth L. Rice                     /s/ Isaac T. Kohlberg
-------------------------------------   ----------------------------------------
Name: Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.              Name: Isaac T. Kohlberg
Position: EVP & CFO                     Position: Senior Associate Provost
                                                  Chief Technology
                                                  Development Officer
                                                  Office of Technology
                                                  Development Harvard University

Date: 3/23/07                           Date:
                                              ------------
DEFENDANT FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC’s NOTICE CONCERNING REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BRYNNE SOUKUP,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. and

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-648

DEFENANT FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC’S NOTICE CONCERNING REFERENCE TO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 626(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

73, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the 

following party: Defendant Frontier Airlines, Inc. through counsel Kimberly R. Miers and 

Andrew R. Gray of Littler Mendelson, P.C. hereby:

consents to having a United States Magistrate Judge preside over the trial in this case.

X declines to consent to trial before a United States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 31 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 2
DEFENDANT FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC’s NOTICE CONCERNING REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE – Page 2

Dated: November 25, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew R. Gray

Kimberly R. Miers

State Bar No. 24041482

Andrew Gray

State Bar No. 24106023

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400

Austin, Texas 78701

512.982.7250

512.982.7248 – facsimile 

kmiers@littler.com

agray@littler.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On the 25th day of November 2020, I electronically submitted the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, 

using the Electronic Case Filing system of the Court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel 

of record via the Court’s e-filing system.

/s/ Andrew R. Gray

Kimberly R. Miers

Andrew R. Gray

4849-6280-6483.1 057446.1023

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 31 Filed 11/25/20 Page 2 of 2