alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Scotsman®
Ice Systems 

# SCN60

- 60 Ib Nugget Ice Machine**Brilliance~** 

# Under-Counter Nugget Ice Machine Features
15"cabinet width, produces over 80 Ibs. of nugget ice in 24 hours. Stores up to 26 Ibs. Nugget ice is made from bits ofcompacted ice that are soft, chewable and absorb the flavor ofthe beverage. Uses 40% less energy and morethan 50% less waterthan stand-alone, dedicated ice machines. Designed with sleek new styling and virtually disappears when installed with a custom wood front that matches surrounding cabinetry. Finish options to choose from include, stainless, black or white front panel kits ifa custom wood front panel is not used. A kit is available to adapt an existing custom wood front panel on the new ice machine. Outdoor approved. Lighted bin and self-closing door. User-friendly control panel informs whether power is on, alerts a no-water condition, and a time to clean reminder. Available with built-in drain pump.

model shown is 5CN60PA-'55 

# 24 Hour Ice Production 

# & Storage Capacity CERTIFIED 

# 4D 70°F/21°CAir SooFI1OOCWater Ib/kg 

# 85/39 Control Board

Scotsman Ice Systems 77S CorporateWoods Parkway Vernon Hills, IL 60061 

## 90°F/32°C Air 70°F/21°CWater Ib/kg 

# 60/27 Bin Storage Capacity Ib/kg 

# 26/12 Scoop**-~~ =** 



# Nugget Ice Warranty Intertek 9001:2000



### • 1years parts and labor on all components

. The Original Chewable**Ice~.** 50ft ice ideal for beverages and blended drinks. 

### •5 years parts on the compressor only. Warranty valid in North America.

1-800-SCOTSMAN Fax: 847-913-9844 www.scotsman-ice.com
E-mi!lll: customer.servlce@5cotsman-lce.com 

# l/") 

# n z (J\ 

# o

I (J\ 

# o IT' 

# Z C 

# LO LO



# ro ,..-+ 

# n 

# ro $: OJ 

# n 

# :::::r :::J 

# ro
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Edward BAALERUD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6198

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Paul Edward Baalerud, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Cortney Randall, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; David A. Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Ashe-ville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions aré not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Edward Baalerud seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of *165the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds; the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baalerud has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-, tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### In the Matter of KiSka Construction Corp.-USA, Appellant, v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 882]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered November 12, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to set aside a determination of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) arbiter, dated May 6, 2002, respecting the parties’ obligations pursuant to a bridge construction contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pursuant to the governing contract, a determination by the *322TBTA arbiter respecting the parties’ obligations thereunder may only be judicially disturbed if it is arbitrary and capricious or without rational basis *(see NAB Constr. Corp. v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*180 AD2d 436 [1992]). Inasmuch as the arbiter’s determination is rationally supported by the contract terms, the petition to set it aside was properly denied. Even if our scope of review were not so limited, petitioner’s reliance upon evidence of industry custom and practice would be unavailing to excuse it from its clear contractual undertaking to clean and shop prime the subject bolts prior to installation *(see Golub*Assoc. *v Lincolnshire Mgt.,*1 AD3d 237 [2003]; *Hart v Cort,*165 App Div 583 [1914]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Lamont GRIMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7643

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 6, 2017

Bryan Lamont Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee,

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Lamont Grimes appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying another post-judgment motion. We affirm.

While a district court lacks authority to reconsider a ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, “this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government fail[s] to assert it below.” *United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Here, “[b]eeause the government failed to raise this non-jurisdictional limitation below, it is waived on appeal.” *Id.*at 275. We therefore analyze Grimes’ § 3582(c)(2) motion and motion for reconsideration together.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a district court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision. *United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grimes’ § 3582(c)(2) motion or *128motion for reconsideration based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) (2012) factors, and the fact that Grimes’ current sentence falls within the Guidelines range as amended by Amendment 782. Further, we find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Grimes’ post-judgment motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argqment would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Arthur A. GENOVESE, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D18-0516

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Armando RIVAS, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee FOR the CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-33CB, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-33CB, Luz C. Rivas, any and all unknown parties claiming by, through, under and against the Defendant(s) who are not known to be dead or alive, whether said unknown parties may claim an interest as Spouses, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, or other Claimants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Countrywide Bank, FSB, Estates of Boynton Waters West Homeowners' Association, Inc., Tenant, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATE



As required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, (as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002), I certify that:



(1)        The Annual Report of VirTra Systems, Inc. for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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 that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ J David Rogers

chief financial officer

April 17, 2006





1
**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Donald P. Zima, Chief FinancialOfficer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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:  May 13, 2004 |   | /s/  Donald P. Zima                               |   |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | Donald  P. Zima                                   |
|                     |   | Chief  Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extrated from the condensed
consolidated financial statements contained in the company's annual report on
form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1256
<PP&E>                                             423
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (60)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              828
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                        1834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2674
<SALES>                                            169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   169
<CGS>                                              800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2885)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2885)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
Ashok K. PANCHOLI, Appellant, v. Jessica Ashok PANCHOLI, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

Moses R. DeWitt, of DeWitt Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,623,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,123,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (581,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 12,547,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,802,000
<PP&E>                                      25,648,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,043,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,097,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,995,000
<BONDS>                                      4,568,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           81,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,178,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,097,000
<SALES>                                     38,248,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,248,000
<CGS>                                       22,610,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,610,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             298,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                385,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   127,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            258,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   258,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Order filed March 12, 2013 Withdrawn; Order filed March 

28, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00173-CV

____________

JOSEPH ANTHONY THOMAS, Appellant

V.

LAKE COVE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-69824

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 13, 2012. A motion for 

new trial was timely filed December 13, 2012. Appellant’s notice of appeal was 

due February 11, 2013, but was not filed until February 26, 2013, a date within 15 

days of the notice of appeal. In the same document as his notice of appeal appellant 

filed a motion to extend time to file notice of appeal.
On March 12, 2013, this court issued an order requiring appellant to file a 

motion in a separate document. That order is withdrawn.

Appellant’s motion to extend time to file notice of appeal is granted. See

Tex. R. App. P. 2, 26.3 The reporter’s record is due April 4, 2013.

PER CURIAM
EX PARTE Donna Rae INGRAM

1160310 (2150792)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
incorporated into the Lease despite the deletion of Section 24.17A, and those terms will apply tothe Letter of Credit and all replacements.4. No Other Changes.     The Lease is in full force and effect, and except as set forth above the Lease remainsunchanged.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this Amendmentunder seal as of the date first set forth above.               **NAVISITE, INC.**   **400 MINUTEMAN LLC**               By: /s/ Jim Pluntze   By: Minuteman Master LLC, Sole Member   Name: Jim Pluntze              Title: CFO     By: 150 Minuteman Limited Partnership,  Authorized Signature       Managing Member                         By: Niuna-150 Minuteman, Inc.,            General Partner                           By: /s/ Martin Spagat                             Name: Martin Spagat              Title: Vice President              Authorized Signature
2
M.B. v. In the matter of A.C.F.F., a minor child

2160357

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas J. Baldwin,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: November 14,  2005 |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |
|                          | /s/ THOMAS  J. BALDWIN |   |
|                          | Thomas J.  Baldwin |
|                          | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6922

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

George Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

*820Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on most of the claims raised in Martin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion; and (2) denying relief on one specific aspect of Martin’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on which the court held an evidentiary hearing. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 8, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2002 

Lower Tribunal No. F14-24007

________________

Santiago Milian,

a/k/a Santiago Jimenez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Santiago Milian a/k/a Santiago Jimenez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-60126 and No. 333-121349 on Forms S-8 and S-3, respectively, of our reports
dated March 11, 2005, relating to the financial statements of W Holding Company,
Inc. and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of W Holding
Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 14, 2005

Stamp No. 2018227
affixed to original.