alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mark and Kelly Hall v. Randy and Melinda Rogers

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 408

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 55294

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Appellees, Randy and Melinda Rogers, have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.

Appellees’ motion does not comply with the rules because it omits a certificate of

conference. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1(a)(5). Moreover, appellants, Mark a nd Kelly Hall, filed a

motion to extend their briefing deadline to February 6, 2020, which this Court granted.

Accordingly, we deny appellee’s motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 9, 2020
# ***Exhibit 32.2***

 

# ***CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER***

**PURSUANTTO SECITON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, beingthe Chief Financial Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc., a Maryland realestate investment trust (the “Issuer”), hereby certifies that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q (the “Quarterly Report”) of the Issuer for the three andnine months ended September 30, 2005, which accompanies thiscertification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78 m(a)) and that theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 
| November 4, 2005 |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  | By:    |   | /s/ | Kathryn L. Hale |   |
|                  |   |   |   | Kathryn L. Hale |   |
|                  |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
                                  LODGIAN INC.

                          STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    1999      1998      1997      1996      1995
                                                   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                                                   (IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                                <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest Expense...............................  $77,409   $30,378   $25,909   $29,443   $17,903
  Dividend On Convertible........................   13,224     6,475         0         0         0
  Interest Capitalized During The Period.........    8,428     3,499     1,650       644       632
  Portion Of Rent Expense
     Representative Of Interest..................    3,143     1,419       960       817       757
                                                   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
          Total Fixed Charges....................  102,204    41,771    28,519    30,904    19,292
Earnings:
  Income (Loss) Before Income Tax And
     Extraordinary Item..........................  (73,037)   (5,242)   20,949    11,773     6,514
  Add Back Minority Interest.....................    1,300     1,436       960     2,060       572
                                                   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
  Income (Loss) Before Income Tax And
     Extraordinary Item And Minority Interest....  (71,737)   (3,806)   21,909    13,833     7,086
  Fixed Charges Per Above........................  102,204    41,771    28,519    30,904    19,292
  Less Capitalized Interest......................   (8,428)   (3,499)   (1,650)     (644)     (632)
  Add Current Period
  Amortization of Interest.......................      683       470       279       205       132
                                                   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
          Total Earnings.........................  $22,722   $34,936   $49,057   $44,298   $25,878
                                                   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
          Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Charges.....     0.22      0.84      1.72      1.43      1.34
                                                   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ- OW-20 10 - 0824 DCN CBM00 6 6 6 A1 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of A.S.V., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gary
Lemke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gary LemkeGary LemkeChief Executive Officer May 10, 2005 24
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2208-E2209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   IN RECOGNITION OF THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOE WILSON

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2008

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize The 
Heritage Foundation on the 35th anniversary of their founding. Since 
1973, Heritage has been a stalwart in promoting and educating the 
American people on the merits of conservative, free market principles. 
Their belief in the power of individual liberty, American values, and 
limited government is matched by their dedication to a strong national 
defense.
  The Heritage Foundation has been intricately involved in the rise of 
modern conservatism. It has benefited from the strong leadership of 
individuals like Executive Vice President and CEO Phillip Truluck. Phil 
is a native of South Carolina and graduate of the University of South 
Carolina. Additionally, the late Tom Roe of Greenville, South Carolina, 
was a longtime trustee and endowed the Thomas A. Roe Institute of 
Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
  From its influence in the days of the Reagan Revolution to the 
Contract with America and in promoting a strong national defense and 
sound economic growth in the aftermath of

[[Page E2209]]

September 11th, I commend The Heritage Foundation for over three 
decades of important work to help our Nation's leaders build a stronger 
America.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C.  1350, that:

 
| (1)    | The  accompanying Report on Form 10-Q 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|                         | Canterbury  Park Holding Corporation         |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                         |
|                         |                                         |
| Dated:  August 14, 2002 | /s/ Randall  D. Sampson                      |   |
|                         | Randall D.  Sampson,                         |
|                         | President,  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                         |                                         |
| Dated:  August 14, 2002 | /s/ David C.  Hansen                         |   |
|                         | David C.  Hansen,                            |
|                         | Vice  President, and Chief Financial Officer |
|                              |                                              |  |  |

 

----
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered

submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 1/8/97

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

JIMMY L. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-7086

DAN REYNOLDS; MR. SOCKY,

Correctional Officer; LARRY FIELDS,

Director; INGRAM, C/O; HOOD, C/O;

FRANKLIN, C/O; GILLY, C/O; BESS,

C/O; LAWTON, C/O,

Defendants-Appellants.

(D.C. No. 95-CV-165-S)

(E. D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

 
1 We note that Petitioner did not amend his notice of appeal to include

consideration of the denial of his rule 60 motion. Thus, we solely consider whether the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failing to respond to

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The question

of the propriety of the denial of the rule 60 motion is not before us. 

2

Petitioner Jimmy L. Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983

complaint for failure to file a response to the Respondents’ motion for summary

judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint and thus affirm.

The sole facts at issue are that on July 14, 1995, Respondents filed a motion for

summary judgment with Petitioner’s response due on July 28, 1995. See Loc. R. E. D.

Okla. 14(a). No response was filed by the Petitioner. On August 3, 1995, the district

court entered judgment in this matter dismissing Petitioner’s complaint. Thereafter, on

August 11, 1995, Petitioner timely filed a motion for reconsideration which we construe

to be a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to federal procedure rule 60. The

district court denied this motion on August 2, 1996. However, in the interim, on May 13,

1996, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment.1

 
3

We review the district courts dismissal of this matter for Petitioner’s failure to

comply with its order for an abuse of discretion. Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337,

340 (10th Cir. 1994). We find no abuse. The Petitioner was clearly required to file a

response by July 28, 1995. He did not do so. The district court disposed of the case on

August 3, 1995. While it is possible that the Petitioner could have shown good cause for

this neglect in a rule 60 motion, no appeal of such a motion is before us. See supra note

1.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
# Official Journal L 319/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 319 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6114 December 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 319

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6114 December 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
 <S>                          <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000926978
<NAME>                        Frederick Brewing Co.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                      APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0
<SALES>                                             1,141,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,141,230
<CGS>                                               1,127,819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,497,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (135,523)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  108,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,552,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (2,907,198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (2,907,198)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.46)



        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,341
<SECURITIES>                                     5,344
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,225
<PP&E>                                           2,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                     803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,083
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,614
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (413)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,892)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.87)
        

</TABLE>
#### Klein, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Joseph M. Boyd Company, Defendant, Karn and others, Garnishees, Appellants.1

*April 8*

May *10, 1932.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Bccgley, Spohn, Ross & Stevens*of Madison, and oral argument by *William H. Spohn.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Wegener & Roick*of Madison, and oral argument by *James H. Wegener.*

1

 See foot-note, *ante,*p. 20.

Nelson, J.

This action is ruled by *Pobreslo v. Joseph M. Boyd Co., ante,*p. 20, 242 N. W. 725.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, with directions to set aside the judgment herein and to dismiss the garnishee action.
VERTX – AMENDMENT 2 TO ADD ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT

August 8, 2015

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590

Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) 

Re: Amendment to Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Vertical Information Services, Inc., has prepared the following Amendment to our current exemption, 

Exemption # 11624. This Amendment along with the previously filed Amendment 1 (not yet approved) 

allows for the inclusion of additional UA’s. 

This Amendment pertains to the flowing UA’s 

 Freefly Alta

 UAV Factory Penguin BE (electric)

The UA's listed above are needed to meet the needs of my existing customers on projects that fall within 

the previously approved exemption mentioned above. Specifically aerial mapping for land development 

and agricultural uses. 

THE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (UA):

 Are lightweight (under 55lb. gross weight respectively), battery operated electric motor aircraft 

 Include on-board flight computer with GPS navigation and location ability that receives signals 

for flight controls from a ground-based transmitter/controller

 Can carry interchangeable payloads such as: Cameras, RGB, Multispectral and Hyperspectral. As 

well as Measurement Systems (LiDAR, LEDDAR)

 Include on-board telemetry systems that deliver flight data from an on-board flight computer to 

the on-board radio transmitter including altitude AGL, horizontal and vertical speed, compass 

direction of flight and direction back to its launch site

THE GROUND STATION-BASED PART OF THE SYSTEMS:

 A Pilot in Command (PIC) in operational control of a flight operation from beginning to end and 

who controls the UA while in the air

 A radio transmitter/controller operated by the PIC to control the UA while in flight 

 A Ground Station (Tablet or Smart Phone based App) which receives and displays real time 

system telemetry and imagery from the UA

 A Visual Observer (VO) is a person who provides a second pair of eyes to visually track the UA 

while in flight.
VERTX – AMENDMENT 2 TO ADD ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT

This Amendment #2 follows Amendment #1 and makes no other changes to the original exemptions 

granted, #11624, or operating parameters.

In order to reduce waste from paperwork, specifications and operator information on the systems with 

which this Amendment seeks to include are provided via hyperlink. It is VERTX’s intention to maintain 

copies with the UA’s at all times.

Freefly Alta Specifications

UAV Factory Specifications

The name and contact information of the applicant remains the same: 

Sincerely,

Eric Andelin 

Owner

Vertical Information Services, Inc.

Phone: 813.992.6612

Email: eric@vertisx.com
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 6, 2012

p0403 

# Order

April 6, 2012

142936(47)

GALE BOERTMANN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142936 COA: 293835 Macomb CC: 2 008-003332-NF CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for clar ification of this Court’s October 19, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED.

M ARILYN K ELLY , J. ( dissenting ).

I would grant plaintiff’s motion to clarify and st rike defendant’s argument pertaining to whether plaintiff’s injuries am ount to “bodily injury” within the meaning of MCL 500.3105(1) because it was not rais ed in either of the lower courts.

H ATHAWAY , J., joins the statement of M ARILYN K ELLY , J.
The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 96-2247

___________

Kelvin L. Scott, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

County of Black Hawk, Iowa; * Northern District of Iowa.

Black Hawk County Sheriff; Black *

Hawk County Jail, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 19, 1996

 Filed: January 6, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Scott appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1

§ 1983 deliberate indifference action. Having carefully reviewed the

record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the judgment was correct.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Scott's motion

for appointment of counsel.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
23.1















CONSENT








The Board
of Directors


Network-1
Security Solutions, Inc.








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 Nos. 333-140622 and 333-162640 of Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. of our
report dated April 8, 2010, related to the financial statements of Network-1
Security Solutions, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 included
in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








/s/ Radin, Glass & Co.,
LLP


Radin,
Glass & Co., LLP


Certified
Public Accountants




New York,
New York
 April 8,
2010