alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-73.

#### John Palermo, et ux., Petitioners v. Town of North Reading, Massachusetts.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 280,

178 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6238.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 128.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lawrence J. Madden, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Loudeye Corp. 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors: (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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 9, 2005
    /s/ Lawrence J. MaddenLawrence J. MaddenExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 11


                         MERCURY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON
                           AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Twelve        Twelve
                                                       Months         Months
                                                       Ended          Ended
                                                     December 31,  December 31,
                                                       1998           1997
                                                    ------------- -------------

<S>                                                    <C>          <C>
Computation of weighted average number of common
shares outstanding and common stock equivalent
shares:

    Common shares outstanding at the beginning of
    the period                                         3,464,097    2,249,097

    Weighted average number of shares issued during
    the period                                            15,956      978,233

    Common equivalent shares attributed to stock
    options and warrant granted                           78,805       34,415(A)

    Common stock issued                                        -      236,767(B)
                                                      ----------   ----------
        Weighted average number of common and common
        equivalent shares on a diluted basis           3,558,858    3,498,512
                                                      ==========   ==========

Net Income (loss)                                     $  391,539  $(1,173,089)
                                                      ==========  ===========

Diluted Income (loss) per common and equivalent
  shares                                              $     0.11  $      (.34)
                                                      ==========  ===========
 </TABLE>

(A)      All stock options and warrants are anti-dilutive, however, pursuant to
         the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83
         (SAB 83), stock options and warrants granted with the exercise price
         below the assumed initial offering price during the twelve-month
         period preceding the date of the initial filing of the Registration
         Statement have been included in the calculation of common stock
         equivalent shares as if they were outstanding for all periods
         presented, using the treasury stock method.

(B)      Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission SAB 83, all stock
         issued at a price below the assumed initial offering price issued
         during the twelve-month period preceding the date of the initial filing
         of the Registration Statement has been included in the calculation of
         common stock as if it was outstanding for all periods presented.
**Exhibit
      32(b)**











**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
      I, Sharilyn S. Gasaway, Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
      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/
      Sharilyn S. Gasaway


Sharilyn
      S. Gasaway


Executive
      Vice President - Chief Financial Officer


August
      8,
      2006



































A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ALLTEL Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S DECEMBER 31, 1999 AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      49,796,989
<SECURITIES>                                45,017,991
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,796,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,885,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           125,021,070
<PP&E>                                      24,641,658
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,126,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             359,520,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,800,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,405
<OTHER-SE>                                 320,637,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               359,520,495
<SALES>                                    126,224,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           126,224,152
<CGS>                                       40,301,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,301,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           157,349,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          (71,426,085)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                17,981,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (46,312,358)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (46,312,358)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($1.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($1.44)


</TABLE>
No. 10-6120.

#### Donald Winnett, Petitioner v. Saline County Jail, et al.

562 U.S. 986, 131 S. Ct. 424,

178 L. Ed. 2d 331,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8136,

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 688.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Catherine Thompson, Chief Financial Officer and Acting Chief Executive
Officer of Ohana Enterprises, Inc. (The "Registrant"), do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to which this
          certification is attached as an exhibit (The "Report"), fully complies
          with the requirements of Section 13(A) of The Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78M);

     And

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

Date: October 13, 2004

/s/ Catherine Thompson
----------------------
Catherine Thompson
Chief Financial Officer and Acting Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-5006.

#### Quincey D. Mitchell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 226,

178 L. Ed. 2d 150,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6110.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

*151Same case below, 985 A.2d 1125.
Good food and fun highlight patriotic event on DSCR
 
  By Leon Moore, Acting Chief of Public Affairs
  The unmistakable aroma of hot dogs, hamburgers, fried chicken, and chili filled the air in the cafeteria of the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Operations Center (bldg. 46) on Defense Supply Center Richmond Virginia, July 12. DLA Installation Management Richmond’s Civilian Welfare Fund and Morale, Welfare and Recreation’s Patriotic Picnic, drew an estimated crowd of roughly 800 employees. In addition to the good eats, music and a chili cook off competition highlighted the event. “I think the Patriotic Picnic turned out great. The volunteers that assisted us were phenomenal, the turnout was higher than we expected, and we received a lot of positive feedback,” said Katherine Brixen. She’s the marketing manager for MWR Richmond. “The event gave DSCR employees the chance to get out of their offices together to enjoy food and music in a community setting.”
#### In the Matter of Alissa E., Respondent, v Michael M., Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 343]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about August 17, 2015, which found that the $45,000 purge amount was received and satisfied, and confirmed a Support Magistrate’s finding that respondent father had willfully failed to pay child support and arrears, and order, same court (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about *527April 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the father’s motion for an enlargement of time to file objections to a May 29, 2014 child support order and a June 29, 2015 order of disposition, and denied his request for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion for an enlargement of his time to file objections to the May 2014 support order and the June 2015 order of disposition *(see*CPLR 2004). The motion was made more than a year after his objections were found to be untimely and his motion to reargue was denied.

The objection procedure does not apply to the June 2015 order of disposition finding the father’s willful violation of the child support order (see Family Ct Act § 439 [a], [e]). The father had ample opportunity to present arguments and objections when the matter was referred to a Family Court Judge for confirmation. Although the father now contends that the Judge should have determined whether the purge amount was fair and appropriate, the father paid the purge amount without seeking a reduction. He offers no grounds to disturb the determination of willfulness on the merits (see *Matter of Maria T. v Kwame A.,*35 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2006]).

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s request for sanctions (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]; *Grozea v Lagoutova,*67 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2009]). The father has not shown on the record here that the mother falsified child care expenses or otherwise shown grounds for this Court to disturb the Family Court’s determination that the mother’s motion papers were not frivolous. The issue of child care expenses is still being litigated between the parties in an ongoing trial on the father’s downward modification petition.

We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

The father’s appeal is not frivolous; accordingly, we deny the mother’s request for sanctions.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
*July*7, *2017*

2017-Ohio-5737.]

2017-0412.

#### In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 10-8265-EL-BGN. Sua sponte, briefing schedule reinstated. Appellants shall file a merit brief within 40 days of the date of the entry and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15917]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Scientific Review and Evaluation Board for Health Services 
Research and Development Service, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 
gives notice under Pub. L. 92-463, that a meeting of the Scientific 
Review and Evaluation Board for Health Services Research and 
Development Service will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 1250 22nd 
Street, NW, Washington, DC, from June 23 through June 26, 1998. On June 
23, the meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. and on June 24 
through June 26, 1998, from 7:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. each day. The 
purpose of the meeting is to review research and development 
applications concerned with the measurement and evaluation of health 
care systems and with testing new methods of health care delivery and 
management. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical 
merit. Recommendations regarding their funding are prepared for the 
Chief Research and Development Officer (12).
    This meeting will be open to the public at the start of the June 23 
session for approximately one-half hour to cover administrative matters 
and to discuss the general status of the program. The closed portion of 
the meeting involves discussion, examination, reference to, and oral 
review of staff and consultant critiques of research protocols and 
similar documents. During this portion of the meeting, discussion and 
recommendations will deal with the qualifications of the personnel 
conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research 
information (the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
frustrate significantly implementation of proposed agency action 
regarding such research projects. As provided by the subsection 10(d) 
of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, closing portions of 
these meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
    Those who plan to attend the open session should contact Mr. E. 
William Judy, MSHA, Review Program Manager (124F), Health Services 
Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, at least five days before the 
meeting. For further information, he can be reached at (202) 273-8254.

    Dated: June 9, 1998.

    By Direction of the Secretary:
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15917 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antoine Pierre, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 822]

*462Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered May 8, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Showup procedures are permissible when, as here, they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification *(see People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541, 543-544 [1991]; *People v Jackson,*180 AD2d 756, 757 [1992]; *People v Holder,*178 AD2d 436, 437 [1991]; *People v Adams,*163 AD2d 318, 319 [1990]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his showup identification was not unduly suggestive because he was handcuffed and in the presence of uniformed police officers during the showup procedure *(see People v Grassia,*195 AD2d 607 [1993]; *People v Whitney,*158 AD2d 734 [1990]; *People v Capehart,*151 AD2d 592, 592-593 [1989]; *People v Dennis,*125 AD2d 325, 326 [1986]).

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a videotape of the crime scene *(see People v Hill,*281 AD2d 917, 918 [2001]). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, any error was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the fact that the sentence imposed was greater than that offered during plea negotiations is no indication that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to proceed to trial *(see People v Carillo,*297 AD2d 288, 289 [2002]). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
# Aviation Hall of Fame nominations accepted through Sep. 30

/ Published Sept. 1, 2021
Richmond, Va., 
Nominations for the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s annual Hall of Fame for 2021 are open through Sep. 30. The Aviation Hall of Fame honors former employees who have made significant and enduring contributions to DLA Aviation or Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

To be eligible, nominees must have been separated from DLA or the DLA Aviation community for at least one year from the date of their reassignment, retirement, discharge or death.

The DLA Aviation community is comprised of both military and civilian government employees from all DLA Aviation locations, or any DLA activity located on the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

Former employees are defined as government civilians and military (active duty and reserve components). Nominees should not be in a position to return to employment with DLA.

Nominees must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Accomplished an enduring achievement that has life-long specific benefits to the center and Defense Logistics Agency.

Made a specific or continuous accomplishment positively affecting a large segment of DLA Aviation’s employees, customers and/or vendors.

Made a long-term contribution that has a lasting and positive impact on DLA Aviation’s mission and/or business practices.

More details on the nomination criteria can be found in the Aviation Hall of Fame guidelines.

Any current or former employee can complete their nomination online or email their completed nomination to the DLA Aviation Awards Coordinator Yolanda Adams-Hall at yolanda.adams-hall@dla.mil. For more information, call Adams-Hall at (804) 279-3664.
# ... ptJr- 0**~** 

## i-**~()03- /lf7~'::**  Devany, Dennis (OST) From: newmanfran@att.net Sent: Z';1;h!;lrsday, February 18, 2010**4~0** PM

. , To: Dev!iny; Dennis (OST); Swanson,'Brian (OST)

Subject: Cape Air Loss a Mistakell Dear,Sirs,. I agree totally with CEO Andrew Schonbek per his essay that appeared in the Feb 13th Plattsburgh Press Republican that Cape Air shouldberetained and Colgan rejected. I have recently seen the results ofthe investigation on the cause ofthe crash ofthe Colgan flight 3407 over Buffalojust over a year ago. Colgan was allowing inexperienced, over worked and poorly trained pilots·to fly their planes. They have given no indication that they won't continue to do so. In view ofthis, neither myselfor family will ever fly on Colgan should they supplant Cape Air at Plattsburgh. We have relatives living in Rhode Island and were contemplating flying to Boston and getting a connecting flight toProvidence. I agree with all ofMrShonbek's otherpoints for retaining Cape Air, as welL Cape Air has been serving Plattsburgh welL There's no reason to change. I hope you will see fit to block Colgan. thank you Newman D. Tryon, 9 Slide Brook Way, Elizabethtown, Essex County, NY

1