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

No. 3D17-1704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CIComplete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Donald P. Zima, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date:  August 16, 2004 |   | /s/  Donald P. Zima                               |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Donald  P. Zima                                   |
|                        |   | Chief  Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----
NUMBER 13-08-00580-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOYCE MARIE SMITH, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Joyce Marie Smith, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion to

dismiss her appeal because she no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,
2

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 28th day of August, 2009.
#### In the Matter of Jerry Spiegel et al., Petitioners, *v.*Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

July 25, 1973.

*Koeppel Sommer Lesnick S Martone, P. C.,*for petitioners. *Joseph Jaspón, County Attorney,*for respondent.

Howard T. Hogan, J.

In these tax certiorari proceedings, petitioners move this court pursuant to rule 678.3 of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department (22 NYCRR 678.3) for an order dispensing with the audit requirements thereof and granting these petitioners leave to file a note of issue. It is apparent from the papers that neither the petitioners nor respondent have evidenced any diligence in conducting the audits prescribed by the rules. Each has been content to wait for the other to take the initiative.

Respondent claims that historically, in this county, an audit is ordered and commenced once the petitioner requests an *106administrative hearing before the Board of Assessors. Apparently, counsel for these petitioners has at various times followed these procedures but has chosen not to do so with respect to the instant petitions. This court is of the opinion that an impasse such as occurred herein, could not happen if the steps and administrative procedures which are of great benefit in the processing and disposition of these claims were formally adopted.

Respondent indicates that it desires to conduct the audits of petitioners’ books and records. By reason thereof^ the court finds no compelling reason nor good cause to dispense, with the requirements of said rule. The audits shall be completed within 120 days from the date of the orders entered herein. To facilitate the task of the auditors, petitioners are directed to have all necessary information available for the auditors including books, records, income and expense statements together with profit and loss statements.

Copies of these audits made by respondent shall be made available to each of these petitioners when completed *(Matter of Pherbo Realty Corp.*v. *Board of Assessors,*Index No. 11526/64, Calendar No. S. 2541, Sept. 11, 1967; *Georgian Web Offset Co.*v. *Board of Assessors,*Index Nos. 4216/73, 11909/71 and 13075/72, April 12, 1973). The purpose of the audit, as we have stated before, is to explore the merits of the petitioner’s claim of overassessment with a view toward negotiation- and settlement. Respondent admits that audits are commenced once a petitioner requests a hearing before the board. This further confirms that the audit is used by respondent in its administrative process as an aid in probing the merits of petitioner’s claim. This is not something prepared for litigation as set forth in subdivision (d) of CPLR 3101, as respondent would have us believe, but rather is material prepared in the ordinary course of respondent’s administrative process to aid in settlement.
Gregory J. BATIZI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Gregory J. Batizi, Blountstown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and, Kaylee Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 2, 2017 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2016-CF-1986, in the Circuit Court in and for St. Johns County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

EVANDER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Terry Howlett, certify that;
 
 (1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Skinvisible, Inc.;
 
 (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 (5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial
 reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the
 equivalent functions):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: April 14, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Terry Howlett
 By: Terry Howlett
 Title: Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Director
 
  1
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of the Company;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Mark E. JohnsonMark E. JohnsonExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)   48
Yudith PEREZ-LOPEZ, Appellant, v. JUMBO EXPRESS, INC., et al, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3493

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
LeDonte DENT v. STATE

CR-16-0024

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000

711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

RECEIVED ON:

September 8, 2014

SEP 2 2 2014

Mr. Dennis M. McLerran, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

RE: SIP Revision - Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2008 Ozone, and 1997,

2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Dear Mr. McLerran:

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) prepared an infrastructure SIP revision

that demonstrates how Washington implements, enforces, and maintains the National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and fine particulate matter. As the

Governor's designee for Washington's State Implementation Plan (SIP), I am submitting this

revision to the SIP. Ecology adopted the plan effective September 8, 2014.

Ecology conducted a review of the rules and programs approved in the SIP in 2014. The results

of the review showed that Washington has sufficient legal authority and regulatory tools to

maintain, enforce, and implement federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particle

pollution, but the plan needs to be revised. The proposed revision, recommended by the EPA

Region 10 staff, would add Ecology's existing requirement for the sources of air pollution to pay

permit fees prior to permits being issued.

Ecology met all state and federal procedural requirements. Notice for public comment and a

hearing was posted as required. The public comment period was open from July 25, 2014, to

August 27, 2014. No hearing was requested, so no hearing was held.

I am enclosing one electronic and one paper copy of the SIP submittal package. The electronic

copy (on enclosed CD) contains an exact duplicate of the hard copy. Attachment A of this letter

includes a list of these additional materials.

EPA Region 10

Office of the Regional Administrator
Mr. Dennis McLerran

September 8, 2014

Page 2

If you have any questions on this submittal, please contact Anya Caudill at (360) 407-6630 or

anya.caudill@ecy.wa.gov .

Sincerely,

Maia D. Bellon

Director

Enclosures

cc: Jeff Hunt, EPA (mil CD)

Stu Clark, Program Manager, Air Quality Program (w/o enclosures)

Records file (w/ enclosures)
Mr. Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator

September 8, 2014

Page 3

Attachment A -Materials on Enclosed CD

+ Infrastructure SIP Revision for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2008 Ozone, and 1997, 2006,

and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (including response to comments)

• SIP Adoption Order
# STATE OF NEVADA Jim Gibbons, Governor Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Allen 8iaggi, Director DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Leo M. Drozdoff, P.£., Administrator 

# Memorandum

To: Neighboring States Arizona, Corky Martinkovic California, Tina Suarez-Murias Idaho, Mike Edwards Oregon, BrianFinneran Utah, Jim sChUbac/

## . ~ A 

# I**(~** 

# . I

From:

# AdeleMalone.BV~~~ Subject: 

### Regional Haze SIP

-- Inter-State Coordination


### Date: January 6, 2009

Nevada sent out its draft RH SIP to the Federal Land Managers yesterday, and we wantto make it available to you as well. The Regional HazeRule (RHR) requires each state to coordinate with any other state that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment ina Class I area inthe state orconversely, with any other state with a Class I areathat it may impact. The state is supposed to consult with such states as it develops its reasonable progress goals for its Class I areas and as it develops emission management/long-term strategies.

Thus far, the Western states have been coordinating through the WRAP. Nowas a final step for this first SIP, Nevadais providing this opportunity for you to comment on ourreasonable progress goals for the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and long-term strategy for managing emissions. ChapterFourofNevada's SIP addresses "Visibility and Source Apportionment Modeling." 

### It discusses source contributions, including those from individual WRAP states, to visibility impairment attheJarbidge WA. Section4.3.3 discusses Nevada's contribution to impairment at other Class I areas. Chapter Six addresses reasonable progress for the Jarbidge WA; Chapter Seven sets forth ourlong-term strategy for the first planningperiod. Section 7.9.3.2 ofChapter Seven assesses Nevada's contributions to impairment at Class I areas outside ofthe state. We would appreciate any comments you have on these specific topics or ontheNevadaRH SIP in general.

Nevada's RH SIP and BART support docwnents may be accessed at ftp.anonymous.state.nv.us (ifcontrol/click does not work, typethis address into your browser). The user name is "ftp.anonymous" and the password is "stateftp". Once into the site, go to NDEPIBAQPIFLM Consultation

- RH SIP. In additionto the SIP, you will find a subfolder called "BART Documents" inthe FLM folder. BART analyses preparedby Nevada sources for units subjectto BART are inthat folder, as well asNevada's review ofselected source analyses. Please note

90 I S. Stewart Street. Suite 400 I • Carson City. Nevada 8970I • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • www.ndep.nv.gov printed on roqdedpoperJanuary 6, 2009 Memo to Neighboring States Page 2



### certain chapters in the SIP contain links to the NDEP web site for BART support documents, but the documents are not posted, 

### yet. You must use the ftp 

### site postings.

We welcome comments as soon as possible, but would appreciate them no later than February 9. Thanks!

cc: Michael Elges, Chief, BAQP, NDEP Greg Remer, Chief, BAPC,NDEP Bruce Polkowsky, NPS Eleanor Kaplan, EPA Region IX
ICHETUCKNEE ALLIANCE, INC., Appellant, v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2273

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 23, 2018

John Ross Thomas of the Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. and Erin H. Preston of St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.
#### Peter Spano et al., Appellants, v Samer Tawfik, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[770 NYS2d 652]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), entered August 20, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendant Samer Tawfik liable for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, is in their favor and against the defendant Samer Tawfik in the principal sum of only $24,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Supreme Court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the defendant Samer Tawfik breached the subject contract in 1995 *(see*CPLR 4401; *Held v Kaufman,*91 NY2d 425, 431 [1998]).

In addition, the Supreme Court properly limited the plaintiffs to a contract measure of damages *(see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc.,*43 NY2d 389 [1977]; *Baratta v Kozlowski,*94 AD2d 454 [1983]). The Supreme Court also properly found that puni*561tive damages were not appropriate *(see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308 [1995]; *Kelly v Defoe Corp.,*223 AD2d 529 [1996]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they were not precluded from presenting competent evidence of the value of the subject corporation during the damages phase of the trial *(see Teerpenning v Corn Exch. Ins. Co.,*43 NY 279 [1871]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
~2/13/2012 17:38 2023313933 KIRSTEIN&YOUNGPLLC 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

) 

In the Matter of: ) FAA DOCKET 2012-0469 

)· 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. ) FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 

dba Asia Pacific Aidines ) 

) Respondent ) 

) TO: CHIEF JUDGE RONNIE A. YODER 

;Respondent's Proposed Witness List 

The following is Respondent's Proposed Wi1n.ess List: 

PAGE 02/03 

]I 

1. FAA Inspector Clarauce Kanea. Mr Kanea has knowledge that Mr. Gazda was 

provided, and did have in his possession, the relevant manual updates. 

2. President of Aero Micronesia Mike Quinn. Mr. Quhm will establish that the 

manual updates were provided to Mr. Gazda pursuant to established distribution 

procedures. 

3. Mr. Richard Gazda. Mr. Gazda will establish that he received the training mm.J.ual 

updates from Aero Micronesia. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ayt~J\,~Z . 1d ·stein ~ C::/foi.R.spondent, Aero Micronesia, Inc. 

Dated: December 13, 2012 

1 
12/13/2012 17:38 2023313933 

In re Aero Micronesia 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0469 

FAA Case No. 2011 WP350005 

KIRSTEIN&YOUNGPLLC PAGE 03/03 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, the 

e:Kecuted original and faxed one copy of the Respondent's Witness List, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800IndependenceAvenue,SVV 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2Wl 00 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 

I certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, a tro.e 

copy of the Respondents Witness List, addressed as follows: 

Don Bobe1tz. Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

POBox 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200-New Jersey Ave., SE (£11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dated: December 13,2012 

avid ·stein 

Kirs n & Young, PLLC 

1750 K StreetNVV, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

Counsel for Respondent, Aero Micronesia, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMY JAMES WITHERSPOON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00372-JAB)

Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.

Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy James Witherspoon appeals the 240-month sentence

imposed after he was convicted by a jury of one count of possession

of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by

more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g) (2000). The district court concluded that Witherspoon

qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).

On appeal, Witherspoon asserts that his sentence was

unconstitutionally enhanced based upon facts, his qualifying prior

convictions, that were not alleged in the indictment, admitted by

him, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Witherspoon

does not assert that his prior convictions are not valid predicates

for sentencing as an armed career criminal, but states only a legal

challenge to his sentence. Witherspoon’s argument is foreclosed by

our decisions in United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006), and United States v.

Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

640 (2005).

We therefore affirm Witherspoon’s sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.2



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 R.G. BARRY CORPORATION 
 13405 Yarmouth Road, N.W. 

Pickerington, Ohio 43147 

March 15, 2012 
 Mr. Greg Tunney

 President and Chief Executive Officer 

R.G. Barry Corporation 
 13405 Yarmouth Road,
N.W. 
 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 
 Re:
Amendment of Employment Agreement 
 Dear Greg: 
 Reference is made hereby to your Employment Agreement with R.G. Barry Corporation (the “Company”) dated May 1, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”). 

We have agreed to amend Section 2 of the Employment Agreement to read as follows, effective upon the signing of this letter by you: 

Section 2. Employment Term 
 With respect to the Executive’s position as Chief Executive Officer and President, the Executive’s initial term of employment under this Agreement shall begin on May 1, 2009 (the
“Effective Date”) and shall end on the third anniversary thereof, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5. Following the initial Employment Term, the Employment Term shall automatically renew for additional one-year
periods unless terminated pursuant to Section 5 or unless either party gives the other thirty (30) days prior written notice of its intent not to renew. The initial term and any renewal thereof are collectively referred to as the
“Employment Term.” 







 If you are in agreement with the amendment to Section 2 of the Employment Agreement set forth above,
please so indicate your agreement by signing and returning a copy of this letter to the Company. 
  

							
		 		 	 Very truly yours,
  

R.G. Barry Corporation

				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Gordon Zacks


 Agreed to and Accepted: 
  

	
	
	/s/ Greg Tunney
	Greg Tunney

 Date: 03/15/12