alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Foster, *v.*Miller et al., Tax Commission, et al.

(No. 27500

Decided December 31, 1940.)

*Mr. Matthew L. Bigger*and *Mr. Francis W. Durbin,*for relator.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. E. G. Schuessler*and *Mr. Perry L.*Graham, for the Tax Commission of Ohio.

*Mr. Paul B. Gingher*and *Mr. James N. Linton,*for respondent, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company.

*Messrs. Frost & Jacobs*and *Mr. H. J. Siebenthaler,*for respondent, The Kroger Grocery •& Baking Company.

*504By the Court.

This cause was before this court on the first amended petition to which demurrers were sustained on February 21, 1940 (136 Ohio St., 295, 25 N. E. [2d], 686). Leave was given relator to plead.

A second amended petition was filed and a motion to strike from the files was sustained on November 20, 1940.

A third amended petition has been submitted to the court for leave to file the same, and on consideration thereof leave to file a third amended petition is not granted.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged, *sua sponte,*that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, dismissed at the cost of relator. (31 Ohio Jurisprudence, pages 930 and 953, Sections 331 and 345.)

*Cause dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Turner, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-20103 Summary Calendar

L.F., by next friend Mary Ruffin; MARY RUFFIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LARRY CRADDOCK; HANS GRAFF, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-MC-34

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary Ruffin, personally and on behalf of L

. F

. (Collectively, “Plaintiffs”), f i l e d a n Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq ., complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The district court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and determined that it was duplicative of complaints that Ruffin had previously filed. Th e court U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-20103 Document: 00511982037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2012No. 12-20103

denied Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP in the district court but granted leave to proceed IFP on appeal. The dis t ri c t c o urt’s order denying leave to proceed IFP is a final, appealable order. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1997). An action may be dismissed as malicious if it duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation. Pittman v. Moore , 980 F.2d 994, 994- 95 (5th Cir. 1993). A dismissal a s m alicious pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court determined that the instant litigation wa s duplicative of Southern District of Texas No. 4:06-cv-01306, referred to by the district court

as “H-06-cv-1306,” and Southern District of Texas No. 4:11-cv-00903, referred to by the district court as “H-11-cv-903.” Plaintiffs assert 4:06-cv-01306 involved

a different child than does the instant litigation, but fail to address the district court’s determination regar di ng No. 4:11-cv-00903, which involved the same child. Plaintiffs’ failure to challenge the district court’s finding that the instant litigation is duplicative of No. 4:11-cv-00903 constitutes an abandonment of any challenge that they might have had to this determination. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Depu t y She r i ff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the district court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion. See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 275. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-20103 Document: 00511982037 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2012
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Mark A. Richman, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.;and  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;        Date: May 2, 2005 By:  /s/ Mark A. Richman    Mark A. Richman    Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<CIK>                                                        0000937598
<NAME>                                         Periphonics Corporation
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                              SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                                            10,124
<SECURITIES>                                                      11,214
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     43,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      (1,466)
<INVENTORY>                                                       15,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  82,738
<PP&E>                                                            44,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   (24,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   103,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             25,617
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                             139
<OTHER-SE>                                                        77,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     103,090
<SALES>                                                           35,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  35,677
<CGS>                                                             18,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     18,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  14,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    2,513
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         905
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                1,608
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       1,608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.12
        


</TABLE>
SkyNet	Aerial	Media’s UAV	COMPONENTS	LIST

Air	Frame	

Vulcan	UAV	Multiframe

http://www.vulcanuav.com/frame-details/octo-details/

Flight	Control	System

DJI,	WooKong	with	GPS	and	V2	IMU

http://www.dji.com/product/wookong-m

RC	Controllers

Flight	Deck- Spectrum	DX18

http://www.spektrumrc.com/ProdInfo/Files/SPM18000-Manual_EN.pdf

Transmitters

DJI	VDL	5.8GHz

http://www.empirerc.com/dji-5-8ghz-video-downlink-transmitter-receiver-p6744.html?sess=569d2cdd8300f9c92cfcaffe70c4c274

Motors

KDE	Direct	5215XF-435

http://www.kdedirect.com/collections/xf-multi-rotor-brushless-motors/products/kde4014xf-380

Electronic	Speed	Controllers

KDE	Direct	KDEXF-UAS75HV

http://www.kdedirect.com/collections/xf-multi-rotor-electronics/products/kdexf-uas75hv

Power	Distribution

Vulcan	UAV	Power	Board

http://www.vulcanuav.com/accessories/

Props

T-Motor	16x5.4	Props

http://www.rctigermotor.com/html/2013/prop_0904/33.html

Batteries

Pulse	Ultra	6S	10,000	MAH	Lipo’s	x2

http://www.helidirect.com/plu25-100006-pulse-lipo-10-000mah-6s-22-2v-25c-multi-rotors.html

																		Gimbal

DJI	Ronin

http://www.dji.com/product/ronin

Additional	UAV

SkyHero	Little	Quad

http://www.sky-hero.com/Sky-Hero_LittleSpyder.html

SkyHero Manual

http://www.sky-hero.com/downloads/Little-Spyder-fr.pdf
( ^ Ronal d J

. Hinderberge r Lead Administrato r Regulator yAdministratio n Commercia l Airplane s Th e Boein g Compan y P.O

. Bo x370 7 M C 03-5 6 ,S^i,\)f^^'l0p2O 7 

### ^'iSPORTATIO N 

## £ i 'RATIO^i S JU L 2 0 201 1 RA- l 1-0373 3 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Managemen t

Syste m 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 

### I ! JU L 2 2 Ai|:2 0

Subject : Model : Reference : Reques t fo r Amendmen t

t o FA A Exemptio nNo
. 1019 9 Provisio nNo
. 1 787- 8 FA A Exemptio nNo
. 1019 9 (Regulatory Docke t No
. FAA-2010-1017) , issue do nJanuary 28 , 201 1

Th e Boein g Compan y respectfull y request s an amendmen t t o provisio n# 1 o f

th e referenc e exemption
. Th e FA A decisio ninclude dth e followin g provisio ni n grantin g th e exemption : "Fo r Mode l 78 7 airplane s grante dacertificat e o f airworthines s before Jun e 30 , 2014 , th e Airworthines s Limitation s sectio no f th e Instruction s fo r

Continue d Airworthines s mus t

includ e alimitatio ntha t

require s operator s to verif y contaminant s hav e no t

accumulate do nth e fue l oi l hea t exchanger s (FOHEs ) i n service
. The procedure s mus t b e accomplishe dafte r

th e firs t flish t followin g an y maintenanc e action s tha t resul t inpersonne l entr y int o th e cente r win e fuel tan k an dbefore th e nex t

flight
. The limitatio nmus t als o requir e a n inspectio no f th e FOH Efollowin g amai n fue l filter replacemen t

du e t o a n approachin g bypas s o r impendin g bypas s maintenanc e message.''' '
Th e curren t

provisio n oiU

y allow s fo r

on e flight

cycl e befor e bot hengine s are require dt o b e inspectedbefore th e nex t flight. Th e amendmen t

t o thi s provisio n i s requeste dt o allo w for

flight hours , instea do f

flight cycles , t o b e use dfor

th e physica l inspectio n interva l o f th e FOH Ean dt o limi t

th e physica l inspection s t o asingl e engine
. Thi s amende dprovisio nwoul db e me t b y tw o separat e inspections :

• Physical inspectio no f th e FOHE s after

2 0 flight hour s for th e first engine ;
• Physical inspectio no f th e FOH Eafter

4 0 hour s fo

r th e secon dengine
.

# gi

. Pag e 2 Mr
. Brenema n RA- l 1-0373 3 Th e rational e for

requestin g thi s amendmen t i s t o ensur e tha t

th e engine s ar e operate do n cente r

tan k fiael for sufficient tim e for an y maintenanc e relate d contaminant s t o b e capture db y th e FOHEs , whil e allowin g adherenc e t o th e bes t practice s o f

avoidin g commo nmultipl e engin e maintenance
. Th e singl e engin e samplin g i s an effectiv e commo nmod e threa t mitigatio nstrategy .

Very trul y yours .

^(^ChnsXmierM
. Thompso n Lea dProgra mAdministrator , Developmen t Project s (425 ) 266-6572 , M C 03-5 6 FAX : (425)294-934 0

c c Nam e Ke nSchroe r Al i Bahrami Jo n Regimbal Sherry Veve a Davi dSolar Ke n Fontain e Lette r Pape r ED T ED T ED T ED T ED T Enclosure s

N o ED T ED T ED T Ye s Yes Comment s

ANM-IOO S ANM-IOO S ANM-140 S ANM-140 S EAS A EAS A
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-52814 and 333-71288) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Plan (as
amended and restated October 26, 2000) and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 25, 2002,
with respect to the financial statements of Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                          /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
March 29, 2002
LEMMIE T. STRAUGHTER, IV,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4334

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 10, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Lemmie T. Straughter, IV, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss this appeal as untimely. The final order was rendered on August 

5, 2016, making any notice of appeal due to be filed no later than September 6, 

2016 (because the 30th day fell on Sunday, and Monday was Labor Day, a legal 

holiday). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not delivered to prison officials for 
2

mailing until September 8, 2016, which was late and therefore ineffective to 

invoke our jurisdiction. Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2002).

DISMISSED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Fabian Scott Butler, * From the 118th District Court

of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 50870.

Vs. No. 11-16-00247-CV * August 9, 2018

City of Big Spring, * Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

 Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

 sitting by assignment) 

 (Willson, J., not participating)

 

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The 

costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Fabian Scott Butler.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision | 14A05-1403-CR-100 | February 10, 2015 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Danny Ramsey

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

J. T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Danny Ramsey,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 10, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

14A05-1403-CR-100

Appeal from the Daviess Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Dean A. Sobecki, 

Judge.

Cause No. 14D01-0308-CM-645

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision | 14A05-1403-CR-100 | February 10, 2015 Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Danny Ramsey (Ramsey), appeals the trial court’s denial 

of his motion for the return of bond money. 

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Ramsey raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the 

trial court erred in denying his motion to return his bond money.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On July 30, 2003, Ramsey was arrested and charged with one Count of 

possession of marijuana, as a Class A misdemeanor. On the same day, Ramsey 

posted a cash bond of two hundred dollars to secure his release pending trial. 

On February 10, 2004, the State dismissed the charge. Thereafter, on February 

23, 2004, the trial court released Ramsey’s bond money.

[5] On July 20, 2005, Ramsey sent a letter to the trial court inquiring about his 

bond money. On January 30, 2014, approximately ten years after the dismissal 

of the charge, Ramsey filed a motion for the return of bond money, which was 

subsequently denied by the trial court on February 13, 2014. 

[6] Ramsey now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision | 14A05-1403-CR-100 | February 10, 2015 Page 3 of 3

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[7] Ramsey contends that the trial court erred when it denied the return of bond 

money. When a cash bail bond is posted to secure the release of a criminal 

defendant, the funds are held by the clerk while the defendant is at large and 

returned to the depositor unless the bond is forfeited due to the defendant’s 

failure to appear. See I.C. ch. 35-33-8; -9; Turner v. Clary, 660 N.E.2d 878, 880 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1993). 

[8] Here, Ramsey posted a cash bond in the amount of two hundred dollars on July 

30, 2003. After the State dismissed the charge, the cash bond was returned on 

February 23, 2004, as evidenced by the clerk’s record of release.

CONCLUSION

[9] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly denied 

Ramsey’s motion.

[10] Affirmed. 

[11] Vaidik, C. J. and Baker, J. concur
exv10w5



 






Exhibit 10.5




[TJX Letterhead]




Mr. Alexander Smith

The TJX Companies, Inc.

770 Cochituate Road

Framingham, MA 01701




     Re: Modification of Employment Agreement



Dear Mr. Smith:




     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of April 5, 2005 (as subsequently
amended and in effect, the “Agreement”) between you and The TJX Companies, Inc. (the “Company”).
The Company proposes to amend Section 3(a) of the Agreement (“Base Salary”) by adding at the end
thereof the following text: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, however,
effective for periods commencing on or after March 13, 2006 the preceding provisions of this
Section 3(a) shall be applied by substituting $855,000.00 for $925,000.00.”



     If you agree with the foregoing proposed amendment to the Agreement, please so indicate by
signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to Mr. Paul Kangas, whereupon the
Agreement will be deemed amended, effective immediately, to incorporate the change set forth above,
and, except as to amended, the Agreement will continue in effect in accordance with its terms.
This letter agreement shall constitute an agreement under seal.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Paul Kangas
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



I agree to the amendment described above

to the Employment Agreement dated as of

April 5, 2005 between me and The TJX

Companies, Inc., as previously modified,

effective as of the date set forth below:




/s/ Alexander Smith

Alexander Smith




Date: March 7, 2006
FOHP, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES
          (SUCCESSOR TO FIRST OPTION HEALTH PLAN OF NEW JERSEY, INC.)
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                            MARCH 31,
                                                       1998            1997
                                                  -----------------------------
Net Income (Loss)                                 $   (889,685)   $  (9,563,708)
                                                  =============================

Weighted average number of common shares:
  Shares outstanding quarter ended 3/31/98         100,000,000
  Shares outstanding at 2/28/97                                       2,100,173
  Shares outstanding quarter ended 3/31/97                            2,086,839
  
Weighted average shares outstanding                100,000,000        2,095,728
                                                  =============================

NET (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE                       $      (0.01)    $      (4.56)
                                                  =============================
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3495 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to make improvements to the food safety education program carried out under such 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

to make improvements to the food safety education program carried out under such Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION INITIATIVES. 

4 Section 10105 of the Food, Conservation, and En5 ergy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7655) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

8 by inserting ‘‘, including farm workers’’ after 

9 ‘‘industry’’; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3495 IH

1 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking the pe4 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (D) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(3) practices that prevent bacterial contamina8 tion of food, how to identify sources of food contami9 nation, and other means of decreasing food contami10 nation.’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘2012’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
                                CEO Certification                   Exhibit 32.1

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 8 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  Tel-Instrument  Electronics
Corp. (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Harold K. Fletcher,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge and based on my review of the Report:

      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 result of operations
            of the Company.

                                             By: /s/  Harold K. Fletcher
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 /s/  Harold K. Fletcher
                                                 Chairman and President

                                                 November 12, 2004

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


                                      -16-