alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2STH DISTRICT 

JOE SCARNATi 

SENATK BOX 2030aS 

HARRICBURa, PA 171SO-3029 

717-787-7084 

FAX: 717-772-27»» 

www.senatorscarnali.com 

^vV^ef««i^^"*^^^ 

v<>^ 

^ . 

DISTRIC T OFFICE S 

Senate of |^£rtnBi|luitnta 

July 22, 2010 

WARREN OFFICE: 

319 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 203 

WARREN, PA i«3a a 

8l4-7as-720 l 

FAX; Bf 4-726-7012 

BROCKWAV OFFICE: 

a i O MAIN STREET 

BROCKWAV, PA 15824 

814-268-2030 

FAX: a 14-268-2040 

WELLSBORO OFFICE; 

S MAIN STREET 

WELLSBORO, PA 16901 

570-7Z4-S23I 

FAX: B70-723-B1 19 

TOLL FRCe: 1-877-787-7084 

Dennis DeVany 

Essential Air Service Division, X-53 

S'*" Floor West 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

I am writing to express my support for the Clearfield-Jefferson Counties Regional Airport trj 

Authority in its request for approval of Option One, as submitted by Gulfstream International Airlmes. 

Said option would incorporate wrapping Franklin (FKL) service with DuBois Regional Airport (DUJ) for 

four weekday roundtrips for DUJ and would best suit the needs of customers in the surrounding TriCounty area. 

As Gulfstream mentioned in their proposal, the Marcellus Shale gas industry in 2010 will be 

responsible for adding $8.2 billion to Pennsylvania's economy along with an estimated 107,000 jobs. 

With that being said, the gas industry is very pleased to have the convenient access between their 

Houston offices and our region via the DUJ and FKL airports served by the Continental Connection. 

Moreover, the increased frequency allowed by wrapping the service with the two communities 

gives the customers access to the world through our local airports and gives the airline maximum 

exposure to increase passenger enplanements. Additionally, the excellent service and performance 

Gulfstream has provided over the last two years has been nothing short of outstanding. 

It is with these facts in mind I lend my unconditional support and look forward to the award of 

Option One as proposed by Gulfstream. This will allow maximum opportunity to develop new 

passengers from the Marcellus Gas industry and the Tri-County area over the next two-year contract. 

Thank you for your time and attention in this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Scarnati 

State Senator-25"' District 

. ^ -

JBS/Isp
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





Board
      of
      Directors


NeoMedia
      Technologies, Inc.




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference to the previously filed Registration
      Statements (File Nos.333-33738, 333-36098, 333-42477, 333-85422, 333-99183,
      333-101588, 333-103172, 333-107239, 333-109778, 333-110189, 333-110329,
      333-114123, and 333-137227) of our report dated March 27, 2008 relating to
      the
      consolidated financial statements of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. as of and
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2007, which appear in this Annual Report on Form
      10-K.





/s/
      Kingery and Crouse, P.A.


Tampa,
      Florida


March
      27,
      2008
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

AARON CRAIG HINMAN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00226-CR

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-3601-112-CR)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter’s third request for an extension of time within 

which to file the Reporter’s Record until December 21, 2016. NO FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Corina E. Lozano, Court Reporter for the 112th District Court, 

for Pecos County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the above styled and numbered 

cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before December 21, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         107,721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,467)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               493,613
<PP&E>                                       1,096,640
<DEPRECIATION>                               (713,653)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 897,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          385,500
<BONDS>                                         15,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,691
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   897,796
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,299,075
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,253,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,277
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,359
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23








SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, Jeffrey L. Foster (“Executive”) and Tesco Corporation entered into the Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2007 and as amended on March 15, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and




WHEREAS, Section 7(i)(v) of the Agreement has an error with respect to the timing of payment and no amount is vested thereunder and the parties desire to amend Section 7(f) of the Agreement to add requirements under new guidance from the Internal Revenue Service;




NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:




1.
Section 7(f) shall be amended to add the following at the end thereof:




“Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent any amounts payable under Sections 7(c), (d) or (e) are deferred compensation and not otherwise exempt from the requirements of Code Section 409A, no payment will be paid or commence to be paid hereunder until the date which is the 60th day after the Date of Termination.”




2.
Section 7(i)(v) shall be amended so that the word “second” shall be replaced with the word “first” in each place in which it occurs.




This Second Amendment may be executed by portable document format (pdf) or facsimile signature which signature shall be binding on the parties hereto.




WHEREAS, the parties have executed this Second Amendment effective as of December 31, 2010.




EXECUTIVE                                                                                     TESCO CORPORATION





JEFFREY L. FOSTER








/s/ Jeffrey L. Foster                                                      By: /s/ Julio M. Quintana


Jeffrey L. Foster                                                                                     Julio M. Quintana


President and CEO


1
RODRICK HENDERSON,

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. 1D16-0064

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

Ryan C. Morris of Foundation Legal, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
m?jif)\ 

SERVED AUGUST 5, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARCUS WILSON 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10EA0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0625 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009EA150078) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Ronnie A. Y( 

Chief Administrat; 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP!0EA0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Marcus Wilson, Respondent 

9575 Upland Street 

Spring Valley, CA 91977 

TEL: 619-797-7239 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Coimsel 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3278 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Groimd Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 23.2
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
   /s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580 
 1200, 530 8TH AVENUE, S.W.
    
    CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8
    
    TEL (403) 262-2799
    
    FAX (403) 262-2790621 17TH STREET, SUITE 1550
    
    DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501
    
    TEL (303) 623-9147
    
    FAX (303) 623-4258
# C_2016309EN.01000201.xml

| 25.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8138 — Shiseido/Dolce Gabbana’s fragrances, colour cosmetics and skincare business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 309/03)

On 18 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8138. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8138. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

L.W.O.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-0883

June 14, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan B. Maulucci, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
**CERTIFICATION      OF **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (i)   | the              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for the fiscal quarter              ended March 31, 2007, and to which this certification is attached as              Exhibit 32.2 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of              Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;              and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|         |                                                                                                             |                               |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                  |
|    |                                                                                                        |                          |
|         | By:                                                                                          | */s/                Rajesh Raniga* |
|         | Name:                Rajesh                Raniga                                                                |
|         | Title:                Chief                Financial OfficerDate:                  May                  15, 2007 |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained      by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its      staff upon request.*

*This      certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated      by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933      or      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date      of      the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained      in such filing.*

----
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 16-1336 

JOHN J. HYNES, JR. & EILEEN J. HYNES, 

Petitioners, Appellants, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

Respondent, Appellee. 

APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF 

THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT 

Before 

Lynch, Lipez, and Barron, 

Circuit Judges. 

Timothy J. Burke for appellants. 

Sherra Wong, Attorney, Tax Division, with whom Bruce R. 

Ellisen, Attorney, Tax Division, and Caroline D. Ciraolo, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of 

Justice, were on brief, for appellee. 

December 7, 2016 
- 2 - 

Per Curiam. Appellants John J. Hynes, Jr. and Eileen J. 

Hynes appeal an adverse United States Tax Court decision. After 

oral argument and a careful review of the record and briefs, we 

summarily affirm the judgment of the Tax Court. See 1st Cir. 

R. 27.0(c). In doing so, we specifically note that the Tax Court 

correctly placed on appellants the burden of proving that they had 

not in fact received the income reported on their tax returns, and 

that the court did not err in finding that appellants had failed 

to meet this burden. See Cavallaro v. Comm'r, 2016 WL 6820367, 

at *3 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016); United States v. Rexach, 482 

F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1973). Similarly, we note that the Tax Court 

did not err in finding that appellants were liable for the 

accuracy-related penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue 

Service. See I.R.C. § 6662. 

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20603

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

REBECCA LEE RABON, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:14-CR-48-1 

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Defendant-Appellant Rebecca Lee Rabon pleaded guilty pursuant to a 

plea agreement of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, five counts of health 

care fraud, and aiding and abetting. She was sentenced at the bottom of the 

guidelines range to a total term of imprisonment of 151 months; concurrent 

three-year periods of supervised release were imposed; and she was ordered to 

pay restitution in the amount of $1,297,644.71. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20603 Document: 00513785929 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 15-20603

2 

Rabon contends that the Government breached the plea agreement by 

opposing her objection to the lack of an adjustment in her sentencing 

guidelines offense level for acceptance of responsibility. She concedes that our 

review is for plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411, 413 

(5th Cir. 2014). To establish plain error, Rabon must show a forfeited error 

that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes such a showing, we have 

the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

“The Government must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of its 

promises in a plea agreement.” United States v. Harper, 643 F.3d 135, 139 (5th 

Cir. 2011). General principles of contract law are applied in interpreting the 

terms of a plea agreement. United States v. Long, 722 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 

2013). In resolving if a breach occurred, we consider whether the 

Government’s conduct was “consistent with the defendant’s reasonable 

understanding of the agreement.” Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 413 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The probation officer did not conclude that Rabon had accepted 

responsibility and did not recommend an adjustment for acceptance of 

responsibility. Accordingly, the conditions that would have triggered the 

Government’s obligation not to oppose Rabon’s objection to the lack of such an 

adjustment was not met. See United States v. Mejia, No. 93-2611, 1994 WL 

243287, at *1 (5th Cir. May 19, 1994) (unpublished); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3. Rabon 

has not shown that there was a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. 

at 135. Neither has she shown that her substantial rights were affected. See 

id. The judgment is 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-20603 Document: 00513785929 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Refugio Ricon Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00837-CR

Trial court case number: 1386385

Trial court: 263rd District Court, Harris County, Texas

Date motion filed: April 20, 2017

The motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale 

 Justice Michael Massengale, acting for the panel

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

Date: May 25, 2017
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 23, 2021 

### ARTHUR JACK SHIPLEY v. CHRISTA ELISE SHIPLEY **Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 16**  **- D**  **- 1610**  **John B Bennett, Judge**

**___________________________________ No.**  **E2021 -**  **00670 -**  **COA -**  **R3 -**  **CV**

**___________________________________** Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

**Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dism issed**  T HOMAS R. F RIERSON , II , J.; D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J.; AND J OHN W. M C C LARTY , J. Arthur Jack Shipley , Hixson, Tennessee, pro se appellant
. Glenna M
. Ramer , Chattanooga , Tennessee, for the appellee, Christa Elise Shipley. **MEMORANDUM OPINION 1**  The notice of appeal filed by the pro se appellant on June 17, 2021, states that appellant is attempting to appeal a final judgment entered in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) on May 1, 2019. By Order entered July 13, 2021, this Court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. A ppellant responded to our show cause Order, but failed to show that the appeal was timely filed. A notice of appeal “shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate court within 30 days

1 Rule 10 of the Rules o f the Court of Appeals provides: This Court, with the concurrence o f a ll judges part icipat ing in the case, may affirm, reverse or mo dify the act io ns of the trial c ourt by memorandum opinio n when a formal

opinio n would have no precedential val ue. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion i t shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be ci ted or relied on fo r any reason in any unrelated case
.- 2
-

after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from . . ..”T enn. R. App. P 4(a). “ The thirty
- day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in civil cases.” Albert v. Frye , 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn. 2004); see also Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tenn. 2009). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this Court is not at liberty to waive the procedural defect. Tenn. R. App. P. 2.; see also Arfken & Assocs., P.A. v. Simpson Bridge Co. , 85 S.W.3d 789, 791 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)
. Appellant filed his notice of appeal well beyond thirty days from the date of entry of the Trial Court’s final judgment. As appellant failed to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of entry of the Trial Court’s judgment, the notice of appeal was untimely filed, thus depriving this Court ofjurisdiction. This Court is not at liberty to waive the procedural defect or to grant an extension of time to file an appeal. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Arthur Jack Shipley , for which execution may issue. **PER CURIAM**