alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.

                                 FORM 10-QSB/A

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1

                       Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                           the Securities Act of 1934

   For the Quarter Ended                                    Commission File
   November  30, 1996                                        Number 0-19796


                   INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INC.
               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


   Wyoming                                                      98-0120805

   (State or other                                            (IRS Employer
   jurisdiction of                                          Identification No.)
   incorporation)


                         104 South Harbor City Boulevard
                                     Suite A
                            Melbourne, Florida 32901
                    (address of Principal Executive Offices)

                                  407-953-4811
               (Registrant's telephone number including area code)


Check mark  whether  the issuer (1) filed all  reports  required  to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the exchange  Act during the  preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter  period that the  registrant was required to file such reports) and
(2) has been  subject  to such  filing  requirements  for the past 90 days.

                          Yes _____X_____ No __________


The Registrant has 12,159,863  shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share
issued and outstanding as of November 30, 1996.

Traditional Small Business Disclosure Format.


                          Yes _____X_____ No __________

<PAGE>
                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Act of 1933,  the  registrant
certifies  that it has  reasonable  grounds to believe  that it meets all of the
requirements  for filing and has duly caused this  registration  statement to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned,  thereunto duly authorized, in the City
of Melbourne, State of Florida, on January _______ , 1997.


 

                              Interactive Technologies Corporation, Inc.


                              by: /s/ Perry Douglas West 
                                  ---------------------------
                                  Perry Douglas West, Chief Executive Officer


   
 

 
<PAGE>
Raishawn ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2509

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018

Raishawn Robinson, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Orlando Echeverri, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 870]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J), rendered June 26, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence supported a finding that the defendant sold cocaine to an undercover police detective outside of an auto repair shop in Queens County. There was no evidence, however, connecting the defendant to the supply of cocaine found inside the shop when it was searched the following day and several other individuals were arrested within *(see People v Hamilton,*291 AD2d 411 [2002]; *People v Scott,*206 AD2d 392 [1994]; *577
      *People v Cooper,*183 AD2d 909, 910-911 [1992]; *People v Webb,*179 AD2d 707, 708, 709 [1992]; *People v Harvey,*163 AD2d 532 [1990]; *People v Davis,*153 AD2d 949, 951 [1989]; *cf. People v Skyles,*266 AD2d 321, 322 [1999]). Accordingly, the possession counts of which the defendant was convicted must be dismissed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
D.D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-397

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Howard K. Blumberg, Special Assistant Public Defender and Stephanie Ganges and Greeny V. Valbuena, Certified Legal Interns, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
This is a draft document and does not represent a definitive view of the agency on the questions
addressed.

This and other guidance documents are accessible on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1

.

Guidance Type : Test Procedures Category : Residential Products Product : Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, and Dishwa shers Guidance Version : DRAFT Issued: October 7, 2014 Comment Period Ends: November 6 , 2014

The following is a draft U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) guidance document regarding test procedures for residential clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwas hers. This draft guidance document represents the Department’s interpretation of the existing regulations and is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)) Nevertheless, the Department is accep ting comments and suggestions from the public until November 6, 2014. Comments and suggestions should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text file format by sending an email to MechOnOffSwitch2014GUID0046@ee.doe.gov . Include docket number EERE

- 2014

- BT

GUID

- 0046 in your correspondence. At the end of the comment period, this draft guidance doc ument may be adopted, revised or withdrawn.



### Q: For a clothes washer, clothes dryer or dishwasher with a “hard” on/off switch or electromechanical dial that physically breaks the connection to the mains power supply, is the appliance considered to be in “off mode” when the switch or dial is in the “off” position?

A: Yes , w hen the switch or dial is in the “off” position, the appliance would be considered in “ off mode ” as defined in appendices C1, D1, D2 and J 2 of Subpart B to 10 CFR Part 430 , as long as no standby or active mode functions are provided

. Off mode is defined as a mode in which the product is connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active mode or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite period of time

. In addition, an indicator that only shows the user that the product is in the off position is included within the classification of an off mode. Pursuant to this definition, a n indicator light that illuminates to indicate that the switch or dial is in the off position is not considered such a standby or active mode function. The appliance would still be considered to be in off
mode when such an indicator is active.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eusebio RAMIREZ-ORDAZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40091 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eusebio Ramirez-Ordaz, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eusebio Ramirez-Ordaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. Califonia,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v.*Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez-Ordaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of Balaam O. Razo, Appellant, v Maria Leyva, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 168]

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which dismissed, without a hearing, his petition for visitation with the parties’ daughter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father did not seek visitation with his daughter until she was nearly 10 years old and, concededly, had no relationship with her. Further, he did not provide any financial support for her. The Law Guardian indicated that the daughter did not wish to have a relationship with her father, whom she had never met. Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly dismissed the father’s petition without a hearing as it possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision consistent with the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Mobley v Ishmael,*
      *572285 AD2d 648 [2001]; *Matter of Glenn T. v Donna U.,*226 AD2d 803 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
Jean MARSAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WESTRIDGE HOLDCO, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1780

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
PLYMOUTH SAVINGS BANK (LOGO)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES: 95 BEDFORD STREET, P.O. BOX 1439,
MIDDLEBOROUGH, MA 02346 508-946-3000

January 27, 2000

Management Assertion

As of and for the year  ended  December  31,  1999,  Plymouth  Savings  Bank has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As of and for this same period,  Plymouth Savings
Bank had a fidelity bond policy in effect for  $7,000,000 per loss and an errors
and omissions policy in effect for $2,500,000 per loss.


Very truly yours,

Thomas S. Olsen
President, Chairman & CEO

Samuel I. Parks
Senior Vice President, Treasurer & CFO

h/p/m/w/kpmg/mgtasr99.doc


Cotuit (508) 428-1300 Duxbury (781) 934-O101 Falmouth (508) 548-3000
Kingston (781) 585-6150 Lakeville (508) 947-6601 Marion (508) 748-2919
Mashpee (508) 477-7984 Mattapoisett (508) 758-4936
Middleborough Ctr. (508) 947-1300 Plymouth (508) 746-3300
W.Plymouth (508) 747-6060 Raynham (508) 977-2420 Sandwich (508) 888-4444
Teaticket (508) 540-5002 Wareham (508) 295-3800 E. Wareham (508) 291-0908
Member FDIC/DIF            Website: www. plymouthsavings.com
Equal Housing Lender (Logo)
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED **

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

| 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 results of operations of                the                Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                 |         |         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|
|                                                                                 |         |
|                                                                            |    |    |
| /s/              Larry C.              Shumate                                       |    |         |
| Larry                C. Shumate, Chief Executive OfficerJune                28, 2006 |              |
|                                                                                 |         |

----
EX PARTE Thomas Kenyon MCMEANS

CR-16-0588

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7218

GERALD JOSE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL T. BELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-00-677-5-H)

Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Jose Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Jose Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Bell, No. CA-00-

677-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed June 20, 2001 & entered June 21, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Thomas Earl SMAIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-753

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 8, 2018

Thomas Earl Smail, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*430We affirm the order under review without prejudice to Appellant filing an appropriate motion for postconviction relief as to claims one and eight.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Elaine V. Daley, Appellant. Mount Sinai Hospital, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 763]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 17, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a telephone operator after engaging in a heated argument with a coworker which disrupted the work in their department. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Contentious or disruptive conduct in the workplace, regardless of who initiates it, may constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Romano [Commissioner of Labor],*291 AD2d 776 [2002]; *Matter of Williams [National School Bus Serv.—Commissioner of Labor],*257 AD2d 839 [1999]). Furthermore, the record establishes that claimant had been warned about such conduct and advised by both the supervisor and the union to ignore the coworker and bring any problems to the supervisor’s *644attention (see *id.).*Claimant’s submission of a settlement agreement in her appellate brief is not properly before this Court, as it is not part of the record on appeal (see *Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor],*296 AD2d 803, 804 n [2002]) and would “not preclude the Board from determining the factual basis for claimant’s discharge” *(Matter of Pabon [Commissioner of Labor],*271 AD2d 800, 801 [2000]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(s)


CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Summary of Senior Executive Officer Compensation


The following is a summary of compensation paid to the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Executive Vice President and General Counsel identified below (to whom we collectively refer as our “senior executive officers”) of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the “Company”). For additional information regarding the compensation of the senior executive officers, please read the definitive proxy statement relating to the Company’s 2019 annual meeting of shareholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.


Base Salary. The following table sets forth the annual base salary of the Company’s senior executive officers effective April 1, 2019:
	
					
	Name and Position
	 
	Base Salary

	Scott M. Prochazka
President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$
	1,323,000
	


	
William D. Rogers*
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$
	595,000
	


	
Tracy B. Bridge 
Executive Vice President and President Electric Division
	 
	$
	560,000
	


	
Dana C. O’Brien  
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
	 
	$
	545,000
	







Short Term Incentive Plan. Annual bonuses are paid to the Company’s senior executive officers pursuant to the Company’s short term incentive plan, which provides for cash bonuses based on the achievement of certain performance objectives approved in accordance with the terms of the plan at the commencement of the year. Information regarding awards to the Company’s senior executive officers under the short term incentive plan is provided in definitive proxy statements relating to the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders.  In February 2019, the Compensation Committee of the Company approved the following:


		
	•
	No changes were made to Mr. Prochazka’s short-term incentive target of 115%;  


		
	•
	No changes were made to Mr. Rogers’s short-term incentive target of 75%*;


		
	•
	No changes were made to Mr. Bridge’s short-term incentive target of 75%; and


		
	•
	No changes were made to Ms. O’Brien’s short-term incentive target of 65%. 




Long Term Incentive Plan. Under the Company’s long term incentive plan, the Company’s senior executive officers may receive grants of (i) stock option awards, (ii) stock appreciation rights, (iii) stock awards, (iv) restricted stock unit awards, (v) cash awards and (vi) performance awards. The current forms of the applicable award agreements pursuant to the Company’s long term incentive plan are included as exhibits hereto. In February 2019, the Compensation Committee of the Company approved the following:


		
	•
	Mr. Prochazka’s long-term incentive target was increased from 435% to 450%;


		
	•
	No changes were made to Mr. Rogers’s long-term incentive target of 200%*;


		
	•
	No changes were made to Mr. Bridge’s long-term incentive target of 170%; and


		
	•
	Ms. O’Brien’s long-term incentive target was increased from 160% to 170%. 




* On November 27, 2018, Mr. Rogers informed the Company of his intent to retire in 2019.
T.M.C. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160100

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Carrie Suzanne BRAGG

(In re: Carrie Suzanne Bragg v. Walter Alexander Roche, Jr.)

2160656

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Otley L. Smith III, President of the Company, and I, James A. Cole, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and

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


/s/ Otley L. Smith III
-------------------------------
Otley L. Smith III
President
May 19, 2003

/s/ James A. Cole
-------------------------------
James A. Cole
Chief Financial Officer
May 19, 2003
December 9. 2015 

Dear Mr. Jernigan: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−0600). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not 

submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/23/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
Steve TIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4939

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Yosbani CUESTA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Victor HERNANDEZ, et al. Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2903

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.