alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 83836 

# FILE JAN 2 8 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TENKASI VISWANATHAN, Appellant, vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; DR. EDWARD GOLDMAN IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; AND LOUIS MARKOUZIS IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY Res • ondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court final judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph Hardy, Jr., Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal, docketing statement, and other documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Appellant prematurely filed the notice of appeal in the district court after the filing of a timely tolling motion, see NRAP 4(a)(4), but before that motion was formally resolved in a written district court order. To date, it appears the tolling motion remains pending in the district court. As this court lacks

'It appears from the district court minutes that the district court orally denied the tolling motion on January 5, 2022. However, a minute order is insufficient to resolve the motion. See State, Div. of Child and Family Serv's v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) ("[D]ispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective).

0 2. 

## g ct, J.

Cadish Pickering jurisdiction to consider a premature notice of appeal, NRAP 4(a)(6) (A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction."), this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 2

, J.

Silver

cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge Tenkasi Viswanathan Clark County School District Office of The General Counsel Olson, Cannon, Gormley, & Stoberski Eighth District Court Clerk

2 Appellant may file a new notice of appeal once the district court has entered a written order resolving the tolling motion, if deemed warranted.

2 SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
lo) I 947A
No. 11-271.

#### Norris Speed, Petitioner v. Hilton Hall, Warden.

565 U.S. 964, 132 S. Ct. 464,

181 L. Ed. 2d 296,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7517.

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT.

The subsidiaries of the Company as of December 31, 1999, and the state in which
each was organized are as scheduled below:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     State or
                                     Jurisdiction
                                     Under Laws of    Name Under Which
Name of Subsidiaries                 Which Organized  Subsidiaries Do Business
--------------------                 ---------------  -----------------------------
<S>                                  <C>              <C>
F&M Bank-Winchester                  Virginia         F&M Bank-Winchester
 F&M Mortgage Services, Inc.(1)      Virginia         F&M Mortgage Services, Inc.
 Winchester Credit Corporation(1)    Virginia         Winchester Credit Corporation
 Apple Title Company(1)              Virginia         Apple Title Company
 F&M Insurance Agency, Inc.(1)       Virginia         F&M Insurance Agency, Inc.
 F&M-J. V. Arthur, Inc. (1)          Virginia         F&M-J. V. Arthur, Inc.
 F&M Financial Services, Inc.(1)     Virginia         F&M Financial Services

F&M Bank-Allegiance, Inc.            Maryland         F&M Bank-Allegiance

F&M Bank-Central Virginia            Virginia         F&M Bank-Central Virginia

F&M Bank-Emporia                     Virginia         F&M Bank-Emporia

F&M Bank-Massanutten                 Virginia         F&M Bank-Massanutten

F&M Bank-Northern Virginia           Virginia         F&M Bank-Northern Virginia

F&M Bank-Peoples                     Virginia         F&M Bank-Peoples

F&M Bank-Richmond                    Virginia         F&M Bank-Richmond

F&M Bank-West Virginia, Inc.         West Virginia    F&M Bank-West Virginia

F&M Trust Company                    Virginia         F&M Trust Company

F&M Services, Inc.                   Virginia         F&M Services, Inc.
</TABLE>

------------------------
(1) F&M Mortgage Services, Inc., Winchester Credit Corporation, Apple Title
Company, F&M  Insurance Agency, Inc., F&M-J.V. Arthur, Inc., and F&M Financial
Services, Inc., are wholly-owned subsidiaries of F&M Bank-Winchester.  All other
bank subsidiaries are wholly-owned by F&M National Corporation.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

I, Eric Smit, the chief financialofficer of eGain Communications Corporation (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge, 

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGainCommunications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
  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;
andb)
    
    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.
 April 12, 2006
    /s/ Marla L. SchaeferMarla L. SchaeferCo-Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE DASAWN FULLER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 73 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
No. 11-5201.

#### George W. Pitts, Petitioner v. Belinda Davis, Warden.

565 U.S. 894, 132 S. Ct. 281,

181 L. Ed. 2d 167,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5676,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-5416.

#### Miko T. Burl, Petitioner v. Stephen Dotson, Warden.

565 U.S. 906, 132 S. Ct. 308,

181 L. Ed. 2d 188,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5843.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
March Treat <f

STB, Wornngtgetertosiminte 78.

World TB Day ( Find
No. 10-10788.

#### Bobra Powell, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 849, 132 S. Ct. 172,

181 L. Ed. 2d 84,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6428.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 926.
No. 11-5854.

#### Tony German, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 923, 132 S. Ct. 352,

181 L. Ed. 2d 222,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6989.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 431 Fed. Appx. 248.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2270

JACQUELINE WOODS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CASSANDRA SMITH, Security Personnel; MICHAEL ADU; WILLIAM 

WASHINGTON, District Manager,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JA-KIA ANTHONY, Human Resources,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00527-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 19, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacqueline Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Ramapuram, 

BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Woods appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her action with prejudice for failure to state a 

claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Woods v. Smith, No. 1:09-cv-00527-JCC-IDD (E.D. 

Va. Oct. 6, 2009). Additionally, we deny Woods’s motion to 

strike and motion to compel. 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
No. 10-9019.

#### Robert Edward Menke, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 828, 132 S. Ct. 122,

181 L. Ed. 2d 44,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5281.

October 3, 2011.

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

|                               |          |   | %         |   |
|------------------------------------|---------------|--------|-----------|--------|
| Name                               | Jurisdiction  |   | Ownership |   |
| ETC International Corporation      | Barbados      |   |      | 100    | % |
| ETC-PZL Aerospace Industries       | Poland        |   |      | 95     | % |
| ETC-Europe                         | Great Britain |   |      | 99     | % |
| ETC-Delaware                       | Delaware      |   |      | 100    | % |
| NASTAR Center Holdings Corporation | Delaware      |   |      | 100    | % |
| NASTAR Center LLC                  | Delaware      |   |      | 100    | % |

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K,
AUGUST 2, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-2-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              AUG-4-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                AUG-2-1997
<CASH>                                         297,790
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  397,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 15,585,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,568,006
<PP&E>                                      13,150,914
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,269,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,340,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,915,406
<BONDS>                                      8,497,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       810,208
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,340,324
<SALES>                                     44,181,878
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,181,878
<CGS>                                       25,254,183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,394,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,210,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,676,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,676,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,676,749)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-5661.

#### Gary Lee Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 918, 132 S. Ct. 338,

181 L. Ed. 2d 211,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6178.

October 3, 2011.

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

*212Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 984.
No. 11-5671.

#### James Varholick, Petitioner v. Ohio.

565 U.S. 918, 132 S. Ct. 339,

181 L. Ed. 2d 212,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5839.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County, denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-14908

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00292-ELR-AJB-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JOSE A. CALVILLO, 

a.k.a. Franco de Villa, 

a.k.a. Ruben Martinez, 

a.k.a. Martinpuga, 

a.k.a. Tobias Franco, 

a.k.a. Nervios, 

a.k.a. Primo, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 17, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and LUCK, Circuit 

Judges.

USCA11 Case: 19-14908 Date Filed: 11/17/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Sydney Strickland, appointed counsel for Jose Calvillo in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Calvillo and filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that Strickland’s assessment of the relative merit 

of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record 

reveals no arguable issues of merit, Strickland’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Calvillo’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-14908 Date Filed: 11/17/2020 Page: 2 of 2
No. 10-8150.

#### Gary M. Cohen, Petitioner v. Federal Express Corporation.

565 U.S. 930, 132 S. Ct. 369,

181 L. Ed. 2d 235,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6860.

October 3, 2011.

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, 383 Fed. Appx. 88.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39585-39586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


[[Page 39586]]


    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 10-11, 1998.
    Time: 8:30 am to 3:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Governor Calvert House, historic Inns of Annapolis, 58 
State Circle, Annapolis, MD 21403.
    Contact Person: M. Virginia Wills, Lead Grants Technical 
Assistant, Extramural Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, Suite 409, 6000 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, 301-443-6106.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 17, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-19658 Filed 7-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              EXHIBIT 11.1
                                     ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
                                  Computation of per Share Earnings as
                                    Disclosed in Item 14 of Form 10-K

                                     Five years ended June 30, 2001




                                    2001           2000           1999           1998            1997
                                ----------        -------        -------       --------         -------
<S>                              <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
Computation of earnings
    per share:

        BASIC
        Weighted average
        number of primary
        shares outstanding       1,031,403      1,045,520      1,100,065      1,111,220       1,112,074
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========

Net income (loss) ........      $1,033,069        782,942        730,601       (739,602)        563,128
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========

Per share-basic ..........      $     1.00            .75            .66           (.67)            .51
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========

        DILUTED
        Weighted average
        number of primary
        shares outstanding       1,033,989      1,045,235      1,100,065      1,111,220       1,112,074
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========

        Net effect of
        dilutive stock
        options based on
        treasury stock
        method ...........           2,585            285             --             --              --
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========

Net income (loss) ........      $1,033,069        782,942        730,601       (739,602)        563,128
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========

Per share-diluted ........      $     1.00            .75            .66           (.67)            .51
                                ==========      =========      =========      =========       =========



</TABLE>
No. 11-5656.

#### Pablo Hoffman-Portillo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 918, 132 S. Ct. 338,

181 L. Ed. 2d 211,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6212.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 423 Fed. Appx. 486.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11309

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRESTON PERCYVILLE CRESSER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00098-PGB-DCI-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11309 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11309

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to 

the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See 

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and 

voluntarily).

USCA11 Case: 23-11309 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024 Page: 2 of 2
Privacy Reminders

7. Contracts and the DoD Privacy Program.

When a DLA contract requires the operation or maintenance of a Privacy Act system of 

records or a portion of a system of records or requires the performance of any activities 

associated with maintaining a system of records, including the collection, use, and 

dissemination of records, the record system or the portion of the record system affected are 

considered to be maintained by DLA and are subject to the DoD Privacy Program (DoDD

5400.11 and 5400.11-R); and DLA is responsible for applying the requirements of the DoD 

Privacy Program to the contractor. If the contractor must use, have access to, or 

disseminate individually identifiable information subject to the DoD Privacy Program in 

order to perform any part of a contract, and the information would have been collected, 

maintained, used, or disseminated by DLA but for the award of the contract, these 

contractor activities are subject to the DoD Privacy Program.

DLA Acquisition Management issued a Procurement Policy Letter (PROCLTR) detailing 

the privacy clauses and procurement requirements for such acquisitions. See PROCLTR

12-05, Privacy Act Requirements.

<Return to Reminders Table>