alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Alfred Brown, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed, and matter remitted to respondent Coughlin for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner was an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility when he was charged with violating Standards of Inmate Behavior rules 100.11 and 107.11. Rule 100.11 provides that "[ijnmates shall not assault, inflict or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon any staff member.” Rule 107.11 directs that "[i]n-mates shall not verbally or in writing harass employees or any other persons. This includes using insolent, abusive and/ or obscene language and gestures.” Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. The disposition was affirmed upon administrative appeal, and this proceeding ensued.

According to the misbehavior report, petitioner was the only individual who was in a position to strike the correction officer. Additionally, the facility’s Deputy Superintendent testified that petitioner’s hand was discolored following the incident. Such proof was sufficiently relevant and probative to support the determination that petitioner violated Standards of Inmate Behavior rule 100.11 *(see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot,*67 NY2d 615; *People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130; *948
      *Matter of Gibson v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 862). The charge of verbal harassment, however, is not supported by substantial evidence. Rule 107.11 deals exclusively with verbal and written conduct or gestures. The misbehavior report states that upon being asked to remove his "dew rag” from his head, petitioner responded "Do you want me out of here”, and the correction officer answered in the negative. That utterance by petitioner is insufficient to support the determination that he violated Standards of Inmate Behavior rule 107.11 *(cf., Matter of Moley v LeFevre,*141 AD2d 1001).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, advanced for the first time on appeal, are not timely raised *(see, Matter of Krall v Kelly,*142 AD2d 951).

Accordingly, so much of the determination as found that petitioner violated Standards of Inmate Behavior rule 107.11 must be annulled and expunged from petitioner’s record. Since the penalty imposed resulted from a determination of guilt on both charges, the matter is remitted to respondent Coughlin for the imposition of an appropriate penalty. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2513]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Bed Rails--Rulemaking.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: January 31, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2513 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                   CALCULATION OF PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Three months ended
                                                                            March 31,
                                                                 --------------------------------
                                                                     1997                1996
                                                                 ------------         -----------
<S>                                                              <C>                  <C>
Weighted Average Common and Common Equivalent Shares:
  Series A Preferred Stock                                                 --           1,919,307
  Series B Preferred Stock                                                 --           3,114,426
  Common Stock                                                     10,067,113           1,745,667
  Common Stock Options                                                     --             883,710
  Warrants                                                                 --               4,133
                                                                 ------------         -----------
                                                                   10,067,113         $ 7,667,243
                                                                 ============         ===========

Net Loss                                                         $ (1,645,000)        $(2,850,000)
                                                                 ============         ===========

Pro Forma net loss per common and common equivalent share        $      (0.16)        $     (0.37)
                                                                 ============         ===========
</TABLE>


                                       19
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
     10-K FOR JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             358,214
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,577,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                       570,290
<INVENTORY>                                     35,918,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,108,499
<PP&E>                                           9,155,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,069,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,998,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,842,919
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            45,988
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,464,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,998,975
<SALES>                                        176,281,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,281,035
<CGS>                                          146,351,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,466,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,328,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,134,025
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,926,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,208,025
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,208,025
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .86



</TABLE>
Order entered March 15, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 01041

- CV

KRISTIAN EDUARDO GONZALEZ , Appellant

V.

SOPHIA KATHERINE RIGG , Appellee

On Appeal from t he 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV20

- 00303

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 11, 2021 second motion to extend

time to file h is brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no

later than Ap ril 14, 2021

.

We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
Guida 333 Petition Ammendment

Submitted electronically

November 6, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Amendment to Guida Surveying, Inc. Petition for Exemption from 

Certain Federal Aviation Regulations according to Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Guida Surveying, Inc. (GSI) is applying for an exemption from the Code of 

Federal Regulations. The petition’s docket ID on Regulations.gov is FAA2015-5300-0001.

The exemption would permit commercial operation of a small unmanned 

aircraft system (UAS) in the national airspace (NAS) as regulated by the for 

Aerial topographical survey and mapping, Aerial data collection for 3D 

modeling, Aerial inspection of job sites, including home constructions sites, 

and equipment and Aerial data collection for photogrammetry as well as 

assisting in public safety.

GSI is requesting an additional aircraft be added to the existing petition.

 DJI Inspire 1

The Inspire 1 has been approved for numerous operators through the 333 

exemption process, two being Micro Drone Vision, Inc. Exemption No. 

11318; and Celestial Imaging, LLC Exemption No. 11359. The manual to the 

aircraft is currently on file with the FAA. GSI confirms that no requested 

conditions or limitations from the original petition are changed. All operations 

of the Inspire 1 will be in full compliance with the terms and condition of the 

Exemption.
Guida 333 Petition Ammendment

Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Dyer at 

Brian.Dyer@RemotePilotSystems.com.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Brian Dyer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 3:22-CR-378-N

 §

RAYNALDO RIVERA ORTIZ, §

ORDER

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing, said 

Motion is GRANTED this _____ day of _______________, 2024. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

CHIEF HONORABLE DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 182-1 Filed 09/18/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1536
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         2378105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4872735
<ALLOWANCES>                                    144000
<INVENTORY>                                    2292057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9763973
<PP&E>                                        27730780
<DEPRECIATION>                                11561128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                29401432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4382750
<BONDS>                                       10565175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         85828
<OTHER-SE>                                    12552707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  29401432
<SALES>                                       28903158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              28903158
<CGS>                                         22154978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26464215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (94409)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 63857
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              366439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2103056
<INCOME-TAX>                                    840000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1263056
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Alfred A. DRUMMOND et al.

No. 2165.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 24, 1940.

Whit Y. Mauzy, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.

Sam Clammer, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, on motion of appellant
# Úřední věstník C 54A/21.

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 54A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 6021. února 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 54A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 6021. února 2017

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznámení |
| | SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ |
| | Rada |
| 2017/C 54 A/01 | Prodloužení doby platnosti seznamů úspěšných uchazečů | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Rada

2017/C 54 A/01

Prodloužení doby platnosti seznamů úspěšných uchazečů

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

V Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Rada

| 21.2.2017 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 54/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2017

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 54/1

---

Prodloužení doby platnosti seznamů úspěšných uchazečů

(2017/C 054 A/01)

Z rozhodnutí generálního tajemníka Rady Evropské unie je platnost seznamů úspěšných uchazečů sestavených na základě níže uvedených otevřených výběrových řízení prodloužena do 31. prosince 2019.

| CONS/AD/430


  (dva profily) | pro sestavení seznamu kandidátů pro přijetí na pozici hlavních administrátorů v oblasti evropské bezpečnostní a obranné politiky (EBOP). Výběrové řízení se týká dvou profilů v platové třídě AD 9 (profil 1: hlavní strategický plánovač operací a misí pro řešení krizí; profil 2: hlavní plánovač v oblasti rozvoje schopností: vojenská/civilní oblast/oblast vesmíru); oznámení o tomto výběrovém řízení bylo zveřejněno v
  Úředním věstníku Evropské unie C 178 A ze dne 15. července 2008. |
| --- | --- |
| CONS-COMM/AD/433 | pro sestavení seznamu kandidátů pro přijetí na pozici vedoucího překladatelského oddělení v platové třídě AD 12 s irštinou jako hlavním jazykem; oznámení o tomto výběrovém řízení bylo zveřejněno v
  Úředním věstníku Evropské unie C 99 A ze dne 30. dubna 2009. |

CONS/AD/430

(dva profily)

pro sestavení seznamu kandidátů pro přijetí na pozici hlavních administrátorů v oblasti evropské bezpečnostní a obranné politiky (EBOP). Výběrové řízení se týká dvou profilů v platové třídě AD 9 (profil 1: hlavní strategický plánovač operací a misí pro řešení krizí; profil 2: hlavní plánovač v oblasti rozvoje schopností: vojenská/civilní oblast/oblast vesmíru); oznámení o tomto výběrovém řízení bylo zveřejněno v
  Úředním věstníku Evropské unie C 178 A ze dne 15. července 2008.

CONS-COMM/AD/433

pro sestavení seznamu kandidátů pro přijetí na pozici vedoucího překladatelského oddělení v platové třídě AD 12 s irštinou jako hlavním jazykem; oznámení o tomto výběrovém řízení bylo zveřejněno v
  Úředním věstníku Evropské unie C 99 A ze dne 30. dubna 2009.

---
Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 CFR §§ 2.721 and 2.1207, the Presiding Officer in the captioned 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L proceeding is hereby replaced by appointing Administrative Judge Thomas S. Moore as Presiding Officer in place of Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch. 

All correspondence, documents and other material shall be filed with the Presiding Officer in accordance with 10 CFR § 2.1203 (1997). The address of the new Presiding Officer is: Administrative Judge Thomas S. Moore, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

This Board reconstitution order is issued pursuant to the authority of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. 

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 2000. 

G. Paul Bollwerk III, 

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. 

[FR Doc. 00-3098 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STEPHANIE AMANDA RUSSO,

Appellant,

v.

ROBERT D'ADDARIO and PAULA BATISTA, 

Appellees.

No. 2D2023-1892

June 21, 2024

Appeal from the County Court for Pasco County; Patrick Moore, Judge.

Stephanie Amanda Russo, pro se.

John Allen Parvin, Palm Harbor, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

BLACK, ATKINSON, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL DATA  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S  UNAUDITED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE FISCAL  YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,  1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000873571
<NAME> VSI Liquidation Corp.

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              1,765,382
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         725,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                          300,000
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    2,958,015
<PP&E>                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      5,958,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 616,834
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               79,066
<OTHER-SE>                                          4,205,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        5,985,015
<SALES>                                            13,536,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   13,536,876
<CGS>                                               8,464,830
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       8,464,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      232,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    163,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    23,964,657
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     21,464,657
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       21,464,657
<EPS-BASIC>                                            2.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            2.69



</TABLE>
Third Department,

December, 1990

(December 3, 1990)

#### In the Matter of Stephen E. Cooper, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in 1973 and who maintains an office for the practice of law in Schenectady, has tendered his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law in accordance with section 806.8 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.8).

In an affidavit sworn to November 5, 1990, respondent, represented by counsel, states that he is acting freely and voluntarily and is fully aware of the consequences of his resignation. He further states that he is aware of a pending investigation by the Committee on Professional Standards concerning his handling of several estates and that he does not contest allegations that he converted estate funds in the following amounts: Gabson estate, $176,709.79; Jenkins estate, $389,449.84; Grauppner estate, $27,500; and Karrol conservatorship, $436,638.63. Finally, respondent states that he recognizes that his failure to contest the allegations concerning the above matters precludes him from asserting his innocence of such allegations of professional misconduct.

Petitioner does not object to respondent’s resignation but has submitted a written request for an order requiring respondent to make monetary restitution in accordance with Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (e) in the amounts noted above totaling $1,030,298.26. Respondent’s attorney has advised that no reply will be submitted to petitioner’s request for such an order. Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (e) authorizes the Appellate Division, if it permits an attorney to resign, to issue an order requiring the attorney to make monetary restitution for money or property willfully misappropriated or misapplied by the attor*696ney in the practice of law. The order may also require the attorney to reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (formerly the Clients’ Security Fund) for awards made to the persons whose money or property was willfully misappropriated or misapplied (Judiciary Law § 90 [6-a] [a]).

In view of the circumstances presented, respondent’s resignation is accepted and he is disbarred, effective immediately (22 NYCRR 806.8 [b]; *see, Matter of Hoffman,*130 AD2d 839, 840). Further, since it appears by respondent’s own admissions that he willfully misappropriated or misapplied funds in the practice of law, he is ordered to make monetary restitution in the total amount of $1,030,298.26 as requested by petitioner, and to reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, if awards have been made in these instances, all in accordance with Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a).

Application to resign granted and resignation accepted; respondent ordered disbarred as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately; respondent ordered to make monetary restitution and/or reimbursement in the amount of $1,030,298.26 in accordance with Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (e). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.