alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jannett PUSEY, Appellant, v. Pam STEWART, Commissioner of Education, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1573

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
Kyle EUSTACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2465

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 4, 2018

Paula C. Coffman and Jeffrey D. Deen, of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Orlando, and Lori D. Loftis, Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm but remand for correction of a scrivener's error. *See**Daniels v. State* , 200 So.3d 195, 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). The trial court orally dismissed the condition (9) violation but the written order states otherwise. Accordingly, we remand this cause for correction of the order.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart RR 

Meeting Documentation: IEAGHG 6th Monitoring Network Meeting May 6-8, 2010 Date Staff Contact 

Information (Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) 

Written CommeProvideDid they also subto Dock

5/6 – 5/8 

Barbora Master Master.barbora@epa.gov

202-343-9899 

See attached attendee list 

EPA gave a presentation to the workshop attendees about the proposed rule. Presentation slides attached. 

N/A
Elijah JACKSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2166

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Elijah Jackson, Jr., pro se.

Brittney Lauren Bell, Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, and Emily Y. Rottmann of McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
#### Pesia Pam Shisgal et al., Appellants, v Eric Brown et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 622]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2003, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order of attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, having failed sufficiently to demonstrate that defendants had disposed of or secreted assets with intent to defraud their creditors, were not entitled to an order of attachment. Affidavits raising mere suspicions of an intent to defraud are not a sufficient ground for the sought relief *(see Rosenthal v. Rochester Button Co., 148*AD2d 375, 376 [1989]). The denial of the relief was also proper in light of plaintiffs’ failure to show a probability of success on the merits of their claims *(see Societe Generale Alsacienne De Banque, Zurich v Flemingdon Dev. Corp.,*118 AD2d 769, 773 [1986]).

*435We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Wims *v.*Wims.

4-8799

218 S. W. 2d 85

Opinion delivered March 14, 1949.

*J. F. Quillin,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*for appellee.

RobiNS, J.

Appellant by her complaint filed November 17, 1947, against appellee in the lower court, sought to have set aside a decree of divorce rendered in said court on January 14,1941, in favor of Edward M. Wims, deceased, and against appellant. On appellee’s demurrer the lower court dismissed appellant’s complaint for want of equity. This appeal followed.

The substance of appellant’s complaint was that she and Martin E. Wims were married in 1901, and lived together until 1930, at which time he deserted her and their five children in the State of California; that in 1938 her said husband brought a divorce suit against her in Alabama, giving the court her proper address; that when she was advised of the action and made preparations to defend it, her husband dismissed the suit; that under the name of Edward M. Wims he instituted another divorce suit against her in the lower court on October 2, 1940, and fraudulently gave his attorney and the attorney *ad litem*an erroneous address for her; that in this suit her husband was granted a divorce from her (on the ground of three years separation) on January 14, 1941, but that she did not learn of it until “the *812year 1946”; that after said divorce her said husband contracted with appellee a marriage (asserted to be illegal because said divorce was fraudulent); that the appellee “is claiming her rights as the lawful widow of the said Edward M. Wims as against the right of this plaintiff as the lawful widow of said deceased. ’ ’

The prayer of the complaint was for setting aside the divorce decree of January 14, 1941, and for “other proper and equitable relief.”

Appellant did not allege in her complaint that her deceased husband was not a resident of Arkansas when he brought the divorce suit. It was not alleged therein that appellant had any defense against the divorce suit brought against her in the lower court. In fact, the allegations of the complaint indicate that the parties had lived apart so long that she could not have had any such defense. Nor was it alleged whether Wims owned any property at his death, whether he died intestate, or whether any executor or administrator had been appointed for his estate.

The complaint failed to state facts sufficient to entitle appellant to the relief sought. *Page*v. *Woodson,*211 Ark. 289, 200 S. W. 2d 768.

Furthermore, the complaint does not appear to have been properly verified, as required by § 29-508, Ark. Stats. (1947). See *Patillo*v. Toler, 210 Ark. 231, 196 S. W. 2d 224.

It is argued by appellant that even though her complaint was defective she should have been given an opportunity to amend same, so as to allege other facts which might entitle her to the relief sought. A sufficient answer to this contention is that the record does not show that in the lower court she offered to amend her complaint or expressed any desire to do so.

The decree is affirmed.
#### People v Richardson,

No. 91049;

Court of Appeals No. 100352.
Thomas HOFMEISTER, a/k/a Thomas Michael Hoffmiester, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4171

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# 

## 

```

UNCLASSIFIED//
ROUTINE
R 131734Z OCT 20 MID510001807951U
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC
TO NAVADMIN
INFO SECNAV WASHINGTON DC
CNO WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS

NAVADMIN 277/20

PASS TO OFFICE CODES:
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1//
SECNAV WASHINGTON DC//CNO//
CNO WASHINGTON DC//N1//
MSGID/NAVADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/CNO/OCT//

SUBJ/UPDATE 2 TO NAVY COVID-19 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS//

REF/A/NAVADMIN/OPNAV/211617ZAPR20//
REF/B/NAVADMIN/OPNAV/301424ZSEP20//

NARR/REF A IS NAVADMIN 115/20, UPDATE TO NAVY COVID-19 REPORTING 
REQUIREMENTS.
REF B IS NAVADMIN 266/20, U.S. NAVY COVID-19 STANDARDIZED OPERATIONAL 
GUIDANCE VERSION 3.0.
POC/CDR JAKE WADSLEY/OPNAV N310/703-692-0644/JAKE.WADSLEY(AT)NAVY.MIL/
POC/OPNAV COVID RESPONSE CELL/703-571-2822 
/OPNAV_COVID_RESPONSE_CELL(AT)NAVY.(SMIL.)MIL

RMKS/1. EFFECTIVE 140001ZOCT20, UPDATE THE COMMANDERS CRITICAL INFORMATION 
REQUIREMENTS (CCIRS) IN REF (A). OPREP-3 NB MESSAGE TRAFFIC IS REQUIRED FOR
1) COVID-19 DEATHS, 2) MEDIA INTEREST EVENTS, 3) OUTBREAKS AT SEA, AND/OR 4) 
SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL IMPACTS.

2. ALL OTHER COVID REPORTING WILL BE COMPLETED VIA OPNAV SHAREPOINT SITE, FOR 
ALL MILITARY, CIVILIAN, DEPENDENT, AND CONTRACTORS. SEE REF (B) FOR 
APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS. AN UPDATED EXCEL FILE IS AVAILABLE ON THE MY NAVY 
PORTAL SITE.

3. RELEASED BY VADM P. G. SAWYER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR 
OPERATIONS, PLANS AND STRATEGY N3/N5.//

BT
#0001
NNNN
UNCLASSIFIED//
```
Exhibit 32.1








ONCOLOGIX TECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES








CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL


EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Oncologix Tech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Anthony Silverman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and


(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/  Anthony Silverman


Anthony Silverman


Chief Executive Officer and President
EX PARTE Perry LANGHAM

CR-16-0256

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130599(33) Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices

v SC: 130599 COA: 266178 Kent CC: 02-005771-FH JESUS JUVENCIO QUINTANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsid eration and, on reconsider ation, would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set fort h in her dissenting statement in People v Houlihan , 480 Mich 1165 (2008).

d0828 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.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
A.C. and M.C. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and D.P.

2160322

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# TRF Kings Bay Provides Superior Support to Submarine Force 

## From Submarine Force Public Affairs 

Since January 2020, TRF-KB has had six Ohio-class guided-missile submarines (SSGN) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) in dry dock with less than 10 days between dockings, completed 14 voyage repair periods (SSBN/GN), six SSBN refits, and one continuous maintenance availability (CMAV) in Diego Garcia to support USS Georgia (SSGN 729).The drumbeat of maintenance excellence continues with the arrival of USS Tennessee (SSBN 734) into dry dock to begin an extended refit period (ERP), Feb. 1.“I am impressed by and proud of the Trident Refit Facility and Nuclear Regional Maintenance Department, Kings Bay team for all the work they have accomplished with little delay due to COVID,” said Capt. Ed Robledo, commanding officer of TRF-KB. “Being positioned to begin this work on USS Tennessee right now is critically important to supporting recapitalization efforts. I’m grateful to have a dedicated team focused on yielding quality and timely results so we can accomplish our mission of supporting the strategic submarine force.”Recapitalization work on TRF-KB’s dry docks are an essential part of Team Kings Bay preparations for the arrival of Columbia-class submarines in 2028. This new class of submarines will replace the Ohio-class SSBN and will carry out the sea-based leg of the deterrence mission for decades to come.“USS Tennessee recently entered the Kings Bay dry dock to commence an extended maintenance and modernization period that includes, among the many planned improvements, the installation of advanced acoustic superiority capabilities,” said Vice Adm. Daryl Caudle, Commander, Submarine Forces. “Team Kings Bay continues to impress me with their extraordinary ability to complete complex submarine maintenance and modernizations on-time with first-time quality and success. USS Tennessee’s on-time docking also represents a significant milestone towards starting the next phase of the dry dock recapitalization project this summer. All of these achievements were possible because of the dedication, grit, and tenacity of the Sailors and civilians at TRF Kings Bay and the SSBN and SSGN crews whose tireless performance support combatant commander needs for global deterrence and undersea warfighting capacity.”The TRF-KB mission is to provide quality industrial, maintenance and logistics support for the overhaul, modernization, and repair of the Nation’s elite nuclear ballistic and guided-missile submarine force. TRF-KB is home to the largest covered Dry Dock in the Northern hemisphere.The mission of the Submarine Force is to execute the Department of the Navy’s mission in and from the undersea domain. In addition to lending added capacity to naval forces, the Submarine Force, in particular, is expected to leverage those special advantages that come with undersea concealment to permit operational, deterrent and combat effects that the Navy and the nation could not otherwise achieve.The Submarine Force and supporting organizations constitute the primary undersea arm of the Navy. Submarines and their crews remain the tip of the undersea spear.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of SED International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Stanley Baumgartner, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Dated: September 14, 2011





/s/ J. Stanley Baumgartner, Jr.J. Stanley Baumgartner, Jr.Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO FOR THE
PERIOD INDICATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              23
<SECURITIES>                     8,239
<RECEIVABLES>                   19,192
<ALLOWANCES>                    (8,024)
<INVENTORY>                      8,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                31,921
<PP&E>                           4,449
<DEPRECIATION>                  (1,794)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  66,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           54,837
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             7
<OTHER-SE>                      11,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    66,514
<SALES>                         15,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                15,903
<CGS>                            5,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    5,661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 6,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   650
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,999)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (0.55)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a Colorado corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Sylvan Odobulu,
      Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
      to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.






/s/    Sylvan
                OdobuluSylvan
                OdobuluPrincipal
                Accounting OfficerDecember
                14, 2006




[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ERHC Energy Inc. and will be retained by ERHC Energy Inc. and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Robert R. KELLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2355

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 22, 2018

Robert R. Kelly, Sanford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., and EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000437

18-JAN-2022

07:57 AM

Dkt. 113 MO
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 64 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 64

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2021

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the 
                    enrollment of the bill S. 1605.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill S. 1605, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall make the following correction: Amend the long title so as to 
read: 

              

 ``An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Kevin McCumber,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC EO FHEARING S FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

FEDERA LAVIATIO N AD M IN I STRAT I ON , Complainant , vs . GRETCHE N HUNT , Respondent . FA A Docke t No . [Unassigned ] Judg e Ronni e A . Yode r FDMS No . FAA-2011-029 5 FA A Cas e No . 2010SO70007 0

WITHDRAWA LO FCOMPLAIN T Come s no w th e Complainant , pursuan t to Sectio n 13.21 5 o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e (1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 ) i

n FA A Civi l Penalty Actions , andi n vie w o f asettlemen t

reache db y th e parties , hereb y withdraw s th e Complain t in th e above-reference dmatter . Ther e will , therefore , b e n o issue s for litigatio n fo

r th e a s yet

unschedule dhearin g i

n this matter . Complainan t

request s that

th e Administrativ e Law Judg e dismis s th e proceeding s i n this matter . Respectfull y submitte dthis Z J day o f June , 2011 .
GERALD A . ELLI S Attorney Offic e o f th e Regional Counse l 

# RECEIVE D JU N \' ' 

### 201 1 

# HEARIN G DOCKE TCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that acop y o f

th e foregoin g Complainant' s Withdrawa l o f Complain t ha s bee n maile dthi s dat e b y Certifie dMail , Return Receip t Requested , t o th e following : Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n (original ) DOT , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 GretchenHun t

( 1 copy ) 811 2 Taylo r

Court Wes t Windsor , N

J 0855 0 Hearin g Docke t

Cler k ( 1 copy ) FAA , AGC-430 , Suit e 2W100 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1

[ . MCDOWEL L assistant Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l 

## J W 0 3 201 1 Date d
action when he believes a state actor is deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical need). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.' , J. Hardesty Parraguirre

cc: Jerry Hooks Attorney General/Carson City

"The clerk of this court is directed to file petitioner's various submissions, which were provisionally received in this court on April 27, and 29, 2011; May 4, 2011; and October 11, 2011, respectively. In light of this order, we deny as moot any unaddressed relief requested in these documents.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2