alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0 744

_____________________________ S ALILA J OSEPH , Appellant,

v.

C OURTYARD B Y M ARRIOT / M EMIC I NDEMNITY C OMPANY , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Carol J. Stephenson , Judge

.
Date of Accident: February 27, 2018.

September 19, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J.
, and L EWIS and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Divya Khullar of Khullar, P.A., Tamarac
, for Appellant.

Brian A. Dominguez and Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami
, for Appellee s

.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17168]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Notice of Establishment of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on 
Genetic Testing

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. Appendix 2), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
announces the establishment of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on 
Genetic Testing (Committee).
    This Committee will advise the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services on all aspects of the development and use of genetic tests, 
including making recommendations on policies and procedures for the 
safe and effective incorporation of genetic technologies into health 
care; assessing the effectiveness of existing and future measures for 
oversight of genetic tests; and identifying research needs related to 
the Committee's purview.
    Unless renewed by appropriate action prior to its expiration, the 
charter for the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing will 
expire two years from the date of establishment.

    Dated: June 22, 1998.
Harold Varmus,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 98-17168 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
No. 09-11100.

#### Elena Strujan, Petitioner v. Lehman College, et al.

562 U.S. 951, 131 S. Ct. 142,

178 L. Ed. 2d 248,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7793.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 84.
Mr. David K. Paylor UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Director Paylor: 

## OCT 1 42 U15

On July 16,2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality (VADEQ). The July 2015 submittal addresses the applicable infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) which are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Commonwealth ofVirginia. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing the submittal to prepare a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPR) action. Ifmembers ofyour staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Ellen Schmitt, Office ofAir Program Planning, at 215-814-5787, or sclunitt.eUen@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely,



# -~>~~

cc: Michael Dowd, Air Division Director Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division



# ,. t:.J Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100%post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
No. 10-7066.

#### Donald James Konshuk, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1052, 131 S. Ct. 621,

178 L. Ed. 2d 450,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8908.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 618.
# C_2014159EN.01002601.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/26

---

Order of the General Court of 20 March 2014 — Donnici v Parliament

(Case T-43/13) (1)

1

((Action for damages - Members of the European Parliament - Verification of credentials - European Parliament’s decision declaring invalid a mandate as a MEP - Annulment of the decision of the Parliament by a judgment of the Court - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law))

2014/C 159/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: V. Vallefuoco and J. Van Gyseghem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Seyr, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant suffered because of the adoption of Parliament’s decision of 24 May 2007 on the verification of his credentials and which was annulled by the judgment of the Court of 30 April 2009 in Joined Cases C-393/07 and C-9/08 Italy and Donnici v Parliament, ECR I-3679.

Italy and Donnici

Parliament

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Deniamino Donnici is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Deniamino Donnici is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Russell Van Zandt certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:   May 15, 2007 /s/   Russell Van Zandt   Russell Van Zandt   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17188]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice Tendered for Filing With the Commission

June 23, 1998.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Major New License (Tendered Notice).
    b. Project No.: 372-008.
    c. Date filed: June 12, 1998.
    d. Applicant: Southern California Edison Company.
    e. Name of Project: Lower Tule River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the North and South Forks of the Middle Fork Tule 
River in Tulare County, California, partially within the boundaries of 
the Sequoia National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 USC 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. C. Edward Miller, Manager, Hydro 
Generation, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove 
Avenue, P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770, (626) 302-1564.
    i. FERC Contact: Nan Allen at (202) 219-2938.
    j. Description of Project: The existing project consists of: (1) a 
15-foot-high, concrete dam; (2) a 5-foot-high, rubble masonry dam; (3) 
a 31,802-foot-long flow line; (4) a 2,815-foot-long steel penstock; (5) 
a 3.37 acre-foot forebay; (6) a powerhouse containing two turbine-
generator units with a total installed capacity of 2,520 kilowatts 
(kW); and (7) a 2,352-foot-long tailrace.
    k. Under Section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations (18 
CFR), if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that the 
applicant should conduct an additional scientific study to form an 
adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on 
its merits, they must file a request for the study with the Commission, 
not later than 60 days after the application is filed, and must serve a 
copy of the request on the applicant.
    l. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the 
California State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by Section 
106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17188 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                       |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| Dynasil      International, Inc (Inactive) |   | New      Jersey                         |
| Hibshman      Corporation (Inactive)       |   | California                              |
| Optometrics      Corporation               |   | Massachusetts                           |
| Evaporated      Metal Films Corporation    |   | New      York                           |
| Radiation      Monitoring Devices, Inc.    |   | Massachusetts                           |
| RMD      Instruments Corporation           |   | Massachusetts                           |
| Hilger      Crystals, Ltd.                 |   | United      Kingdom                     |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dajon Melendez, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 550]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered June 11, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by mak*563ing application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
(October 31, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Andino Perez, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 785]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J., James M. Burke, J. and Richard D. Carruthers, J. at pleas; James M. Burke, J. at sentencing), rendered February 24, 2016, unanimously affirmed.

Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TUMBLEWEED, INC.  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                              470,948
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     2,104,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                       1,715,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  4,686,008
<PP&E>                                                           30,296,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    5,633,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   38,161,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             5,733,018
<BONDS>                                                          13,447,676
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                             58,818
<OTHER-SE>                                                       18,017,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     38,161,994
<SALES>                                                          25,707,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 28,024,021
<CGS>                                                             7,365,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    18,844,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  650,559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      11,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          4,070
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   7,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        755,923
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0.13



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6625

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RICKY BERNARD ECKLES,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: November 12, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Bernard Eckles, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Ricky Bernard Eckles appeals the district court’s

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for

reduction of sentence. * We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. United States v. Eckles , No. 5:05-cr00009-RLV-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2009); United States v.

Lindsey , 556 F.3d 238, 244 (4th Cir. 2009). 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

* Eckles filed a notice of appeal outside of the appeal period, and we remanded to the district court to determine whether Eckles had demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. See United States v. Eckles , 328 F. App’x 255 (4th Cir. June 25, 2009) (No. 09-6625). The district court found Eckles demonstrated good cause and therefore deemed the notice of appeal timely filed. Accordingly, we review the appeal on the merits.
No. 10-7028.

#### Henry Zambrano Rodriguez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1052, 131 S. Ct. 618,

178 L. Ed. 2d 449,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8854.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Exhibit 4.2

                      [LETTERHEAD OF VINTAGE FILINGS, LLC]


October 27, 2004
Marx Toys, Inc.

                         RE: CONTRACT FOR EDGAR SERVICES

           I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to a package
program of EDGAR services from Vintage Filings, LLC as a method of saving your
public company the typical costs associated with EDGAR filings and SEC reporting
requirements.

I.       CONSULTING SERVICES

         Vintage Filings hereby agrees to provided the following consulting and
advisory services to your Company: review your Company's filing history
throughout the prior twelve month period and, while taking into consideration
the new requirements of Sarbanes Oxley, determine a cost effective plan to
edgarize the filings you are likely to require over the next 12 months. We will
provide you, on a timely basis, with updates regarding SEC edgar filing software
and new developments with regard to SEC filing forms and HTML requirements. If
needed, we can train the Company how to file Section 16 reporting requirements
(Forms 3, 4 and 5 ) on-line and assist in obtaining edgar access codes for the
Company's officers, directors and 10% shareholders. We will also assist in
formatting filings which may include Forms 3, 4, 5, 13Gs, 13Ds, S-8, 8K, 10Q,
10K, S-3, SB-2, S-2 and proxy statements. In analyzing your expected costs we
have taken into account the typical costs associated with

    - text and tabular pages
    - amended proofs and changed pages / expedited fees
    - test filing and real time live filing fees
    - all email distributions of PDF EDGAR proofs
    - all facsimile transmissions of EDGAR proofs
    - all 12b25 and NT-10K extension forms - SEC filing of a Form ID


<PAGE>

II.      FEES

As part of this Agreement, we agree to provide the above-described, unlimited,
edgarizing services for the Company's SEC filings for 12 months. In return for
these services, you hereby agree to issue, to our below named individuals,
shares of the Company's Common Stock to be registered under Form S-8 in the
following amounts:

     -   4,400,000 shares to be registered in the name of
         Shai Z. Stern -
         43 Maple Avenue
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516

     -   4,400,000 shares  to be registered in the name of
         Seth Farbman  -
         301 Eastwood Road
         Woodmere, NY 11598

Such shares must be registered on a Form S-8 registration statement within 15
days from the date hereof.

We would appreciate the opportunity to further develop our long-term
relationship and be of service to you and your Company. Please feel free to
contact us at (212) 730-4302 or via email at efilings@vfilings.com. Please
confirm agreement by signing and faxing to 646.349.9655. We look forward to
beginning of a mutually beneficial relationship.

                                                     Best wishes,


                                                     Seth A. Farbman, Esq.
                                                     Co-Chairman and President

AGREED:

COMPANY:

           /s/ Robert Banberry
By: _________________________________________
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1217 KA 10-00520**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
LERAE YVONNE SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered January 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court