alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jonathan STEINBERG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

Lori D. Loftis, and Marc J. Antoine, of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Jamie  B.  Coulter,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of Lone  Star
Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 23, 2004 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                                          /s/ Jamie B. Coulter
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Jamie B. Coulter
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         May 3, 2004
```
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 96-40593

Summary Calendar

___________________

CARL RUBIN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CV-292)

October 20, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carl Rubin Williams, Texas prisoner # 398504, filed a civil

rights action against Gary Johnson, Director of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), alleging that he was

deprived of the opportunity to have 1758 days of good time credits

restored in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. We do not

decide whether Williams should have brought his claim in a habeas

corpus application or a civil rights action because he has failed
- 2 -

to state a claim for relief under either standard. See Thomas v.

Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983); cert. denied 465 U.S.

1010 (1984).

Effective 20 November 1993, TDCJ issued a directive

discontinuing the restoration of good conduct time forfeited as a

result of disciplinary violations. We have held, that this

directive does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Hallmark v.

Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1078-79 (5th Cir. 1997). 

To the extent that Williams raises a claim that he was

deprived of a liberty interest without due process, we review for

plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-63

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-

37 (1993)), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1196 (1995)). We do not address

the issue because Williams has not demonstrated error, plain or

otherwise. Id.

AFFIRMED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1829** 

WARREN K. GLADDEN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; GARY LOCKE, Secretary , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 01665

- PJM )

Submitted : February 9, 2012 Decided: February 17, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Jud ge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Warren K. Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Warren K. Gladden appeals the district court ’ s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act . We have reviewed the record

a nd find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gladden v. United States Dep’t of Commerce , No. 8:10

- cv - 01665

- PJM (D. Md. May 31, 2011)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
content ions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Melvin TOOMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3594

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

          - [Docket No. ED-2020-SCC-0011]

# AGENCY:

Department of Education (ED), Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE).

# ACTION:

Correction notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        On February 3, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education published a 60-day comment period notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         (Vol. 87, No. 23, Page 6154, Column 1, 2 and 3) seeking public comment for an information collection entitled, “Supplemental Support under the American Rescue Plan (SSARP) Application.” The comment closing date of April 4, 2022, has been corrected to March 7, 2022, due to this being a 30 day notice.                    

The PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Dated: February 3, 2022.

Kate Mullan, PRA,

Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

[FR Doc. 2022-02575 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
<PAGE>




                             AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

    THAT CERTAIN Promissory Note ("NOTE") dated October 17, 1997, in the
principal sum of SIX MILLION and NO/100 DOLLARS ($6,000,000), made by EAGLE
HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC., a Washington corporation, ("BORROWER") and payable to
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("LENDER"), is amended as follows:

    1.   The definition of Adjustment Date in Section 1.1(a) of the Note is
replaced with the following:

              ADJUSTMENT DATE means the date of this Note and the fifteenth
              (15th) day of each calendar month hereafter.

    2.   Section 2 of the Note is replaced with the following:

              2.   PAYMENTS.  On the 15th day of November, 1997, and on the
              same day of each month thereafter, Borrower shall make monthly
              payments of principal and interest consisting of the sum of:  (a)
              all interest accrued through the last payment date, and (b) a
              payment of principal in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND and no/100
              DOLLARS ($50,000.00)

    The Note, as amended hereby, is affirmed and ratified.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have signed this Amendment
effective as of this 1st day of November, 1997.


                                       "LENDER"

                                       KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
                                       banking association

                                       By:    /s/ Shelly L. Schwab
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Name:  Shelly L. Schwab
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: Senior Loan Closing Officer
                                             -----------------------------

                                       "BORROWER"

                                       EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC., a
                                       Washington corporation

                                       By:    /s/ Ronald P. Maccarone
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Name:  Ronald P. Maccarone
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: EVP/CFO
                                             -----------------------------
# Az Európai Unió C 164A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0979 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 164A |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 57. évfolyam2014. május 29. |

ISSN 1977-0979

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 164A

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

57. évfolyam2014. május 29.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Hirdetmények |
| | KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK |
| | Európai Központi Bank |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | A felülvizsgálati testület tagjaként történő kinevezés érdekben való jelentkezés határidejének meghosszabbítása | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

V   Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Központi Bank

2014/C 164A/01

A felülvizsgálati testület tagjaként történő kinevezés érdekben való jelentkezés határidejének meghosszabbítása

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | A HL C A Versenyvizsga áttekintése | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

A HL C A Versenyvizsga áttekintése

2

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

V Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Központi Bank

| 29.5.2014 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 164/1

---

A felülvizsgálati testület tagjaként történő kinevezés érdekben való jelentkezés határidejének meghosszabbítása

2014/C 164 A/01

Az EKB ezennel bejelenti, hogy az Európai Központi Bank (Frankfurt am Main, Németország) felülvizsgálati testületének tagjaiként és póttagjaiként kinevezendő külső szakértők számára a szándéknyilatkozat benyújtására vonatkozó, az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában2014. május 1-jén közzétett felhívás (1) alapján történő jelentkezések benyújtásának határideje 2014. június 2-ig meghosszabbításra kerül.

Frankfurt am Main, 2014. május 23.

---

(1)  HL C 133. A, 2014.5.1., 1. o.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 164/2

---

A HL C A „Versenyvizsga” áttekintése

2014/C 164 A/02

Itt találja a Hivatalos Lap C A sorozata idei publikációinak listáját.

Ellenkező jelzés híján, a HL-számok valamennyi nyelvi változatban elérhetők.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
Alphonso JAMES, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4915

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



                  P.A.M. Transport, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

              P.A.M. Special Services, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

               P.A.M. Dedicated Services, Inc. (Ohio Corporation)

             P.A.M. Logistics Services, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

                        T.T.X., Inc. (Texas Corporation)

                  Choctaw Express, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)

                 Choctaw Brokerage, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)

               Allen Freight Services, Inc. (Missouri Corporation)

                  Decker Transport Co. Inc. (Ohio Corporation)

                                       51
Charles W. BURNSED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2966

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Docket No. FAA- 

## <Ol{- OD).5 Record ofExParte Contacts o?D 

### IO-1'J M- 

### ;;z03-AD Directorate Identifier: -AD
With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA,NBAA, RAA,IAOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need tosubmit aseparate record to the Rules Docket. TheAD Ma~ual defines "Ex Parte Contacts. '')• ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE 

### Boeing Bruce Shull 07/1 1/07 to Dresent Concur. ATA 

### Joe White 08/25/1 0 No response.

Other/Additional Information:
Lakeisha Alisheia JONES v. STATE

CR-15-0878

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joseph WASHAWITZ, Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1420

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

----

----

----

----

|        If to      Employer:        CytRx      Corporation       11726      San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650       Los      Angeles, California  90049       Facsimile:                  (310)      826-5529       Attention:                  Chief      Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          If to      Employee:        __________________       __________________       __________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx      Corporation  By:      /s/ STEVEN A. KRIEGSMANSteven A.KriegsmanChief Executive      Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   “EMPLOYEE” /s/ JOHN      CALOZ                                                               John      Caloz |

----
#### Linn GARNER *v.*HIGHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 42

5-4420

421 S. W. 2d 895

Opinion delivered December 18, 1967

*Shelby G. Ferguson,*for appellant.

*Gus Causbie*and *Harry L. Ponder,*for appellee.

*Eugene R. Warren,*amicus curiae.

Paul Ward, Justice.

This is an action by a public school teacher against a School District for breach of contract. The pertinent facts are stipulated.

On August 10, 1964, Linn Garner (appellant here) entered into a written contract with Highland School District No. 42 of Sharp County (appellee here) to teach physical education. The contract provides, among other things, that appellant was employed . . for a term of 12 months beginning July 1st, 1964 ...” for *751a salary of $425 per month. On May 28, 1965 appellee wrote appellant that “Due to the expanded duty requirements in the athletic department ... it has become necessary to terminate your contract for the 1964-1965 school year. ’ ’ The letter was received by appellant on June 7, 1965.

A hearing was had before the trial judge sitting, by agreement, as a jury. The judge found that: “Under the terms of the contract ... the notice of termination given defendant (appellee) to the plaintiff (appellant) was adequate, timely and proper”.

It is our conclusion that the holding of the trial court is correct and must be affirmed. Language found in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1304 (Supp. 1967) is plain and controlling. The pertinent part of said section reads:

> “Every contract of employment hereafter made between a teacher and a board of school directors shall be renewed in writing on the same terms and for the same salary, unless increased or decreased by law, for the school year next succeeding the date of termination fixed therein, which renewal may be made by indorsement on the existing contract instrument; *unless during the period of such contract*or within ten (10) days after the termination of said school term, the teacher shall be notified by the school board in writing delivered in person or mailed to him or her at last and usual known address by registered mail that such contract will not be renewed for such succeeding year . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)

It is undisputed that appellant was given proper notice “during the period” of his contract of employment as a teacher.

In view of the conclusion above reached it becomes unnecessary to discuss other matters raised on appeal.

Affirmed.
AFS-14-006-E December 20, 2013

Exemption No. 10907 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0886

Mr. Adam Holling Parent of Payton Holling 16733 Washington Street Omaha, NE 68135

Dear Mr. Holling:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received October 17, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Payton Holling for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Payton to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Payton.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Payton Holling an exemption from § 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Payton is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow him to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Payton’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Payton Holling may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Payton’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure