alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 16 (Monday, January 27, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint

Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Public 
Meeting--February 18, 2025

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    Pursuant to United States Code, title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), 
the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory 
Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for February 18, 2025.
    Date: February 18, 2025.
    Time: 11 a.m.-4:45 p.m. (eastern time).
    Location: Remote via Video- conference.
    Subject: Review and discussion of the candidate designs for the 
2026 American Innovation $1 Coin Program: California, Wisconsin, 
Minnesota, and Iowa; review and discussion of the candidate designs for 
the 2027-2028 Platinum Proof Coins; review and discussion of the 
candidate designs for the 2025 Sacagawea 25th Anniversary Coins; and 
discussion of potential concepts/themes for a future Native American $1 
Coin Program.
    Interested members of the public may watch the meeting via live 
stream on the United States Mint's YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/usmint. To watch the meeting live, members of the 
public may click on the ``February 18, 2025'' icons under the Live Tab 
on the specific day.
    The public should call the CCAC HOTLINE at (202) 354-7502 for the 
latest updates on meeting time and access information.
    The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or 
design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, 
Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals; advises the 
Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places 
to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of 
the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative 
coin designation is made; and makes recommendations with respect to the 
mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
    For members of the public interested in watching on-line, this is a 
reminder that the remote access is for observation purposes only. 
Members of the public may submit matters for the CCAC's consideration 
by email to [email protected].
    For Accommodation Request: If you require an accommodation to watch 
the CCAC meeting, please contact the Office of Equal Employment 
Opportunity by February 13, 2025. You may submit an email request to 
Reasonable. [email protected] or call 202-354-7260 or 1-
888-646-8369 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Warren, United States Mint 
Liaison to the CCAC, 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 
202-354-7208.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C))

Eric Anderson,
Executive Secretary, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2025-01749 Filed 1-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

G & G 1016 LLC,

Appellant,

v.

HERON BAY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. and 1722 

INVESTMENT INC.,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-36

[January 26, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Michael A. Robinson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE18010490.

Jason Bravo of The Bravo Law Firm, PLLC, Coral Gables, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee Heron Bay Community Association, Inc.

Yamila Lorenzo and Ryan M. Clancy of Ainsworth + Clancy, PLLC, 

Miami, for appellee 1722 Investment Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

CONSUELO PORTILLO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-128-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER

 THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

February 3, 2006 (Doc. 25). No written objections have been filed. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and

Recommendation are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court and that this cause

is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to 405 U.S.C.

§ 405(g).

Upon remand, the ALJ shall evaluate the medical opinions of the treating physician as to the

limitations resulting from Plaintiff’s impairments in accordance with 20 CFR § 414.1527(d) and

Newton.

Dated February 22, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 1:04-cv-00128-C Document 26 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 90
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7185

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ARKALGUD LAKSHMINARASIMHA, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-mj-01029-D-1) 

Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 

civil action for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lakshminarasimha’s informal briefs do not challenge the bases 

for the district court’s disposition, Lakshminarasimha has forfeited appellate review of 

the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. North Carolina v. 

Lakshminarasimha, No. 5:18-mj-01029-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2018). We deny 

Lakshminarasimha’s motion to expedite decision and self-styled “Emergency Rule 27 

motion” and 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. 

AFFIRMED
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID 121
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID 122
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID 123
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 19 Filed 06/22/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID 124
Steeven R. WALTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2827

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 11, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION.**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Quarterly Report of Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Santo, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.

Date: July 6, 2007



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Steven Santo
|Name:            |  | Steven Santo           
|Title:           |  | Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10


                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this "Amendment") is entered
into by and between ENCOMPASS MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company") and HENRY P. HOLLAND, a resident of Harris County, Texas
("Employee").  Encompass Services Corporation, a Texas corporation ("Encompass")
has joined herein solely for the purpose of acknowledging its consent to this
Amendment.

The Company and Employee have entered into an Employment Agreement dated
effective as of November 1, 2000, pursuant to which Employee was hired by the
Company as its Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer effective as
of November 1, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement").  The Company and Employee have
determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and Employee for
Employee to commence employment with the Company as soon as possible.  In
consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.  Date of Employment.  Employee shall commence employment with the Company
effective as of October 16, 2000.

2.  No Further Amendment.  Except as provided herein, the Employment Agreement
has not previously been amended or modified by the Company or Employee.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Employee have executed this Amendment
effective as of October 16, 2000.

                                           COMPANY:

                                           ENCOMPASS MANAGEMENT CO.


                                           By:/S/ JOSEPH M. IVEY
                                              ------------------
                                           Joseph M. Ivey
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                           EMPLOYEE:

                                           /S/ HENRY P. HOLLAND
                                           --------------------
                                           Henry P. Holland
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Encompass Services Corporation has executed this
Agreement on the date first above written for the purpose of acknowledging and
consenting thereto.

ENCOMPASS SERVICES CORPORATION

By:/S/ JOSEPH M. IVEY
   -------------------------------------
   Joseph M. Ivey
   President and Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE Melvin SMITH

1161157 (CR-16-0046)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 32.2  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 Quarterly Report of Our Glass, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. Date: April 4, 2008 /s/ Cosmo Palmieri Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21.1



Champps Entertainment, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries



| |  |  | Champps Operating Corporation
| | - |  | -----------------------------



| |  |  | Champps of Maryland, Inc.
| | - |  | -------------------------



| |  |  | Champps Americana, Inc.
| | - |  | -----------------------



| |  |  | Champps Entertainment of Edison, Inc.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------



| |  |  | Champps Entertainment of Texas, Inc.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------



| |  |  | Champps of Atlantic City
| | - |  | ------------------------
Donald Howard SMITH, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-475

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 23, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Richard PIERSON, DOC #915279, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 13, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Valley Commerce
Bancorp (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of Donald A. Gilles, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Roy O. Estridge, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

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

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


        Date: May 10, 2006              /s/ Donald A. Gilles
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Donald A. Gilles
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer




        Date: May 10, 2006              /s/ Roy O. Estridge
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Roy O. Estridge
                                        Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.


                                       28
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

GARY STEVEN WHITE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2320

[ November 21, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Laura S. Johnson , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CF

004350

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistan t Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Will Devon CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2181

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 29,945.

#### G. R. Shaffer et al., *Appellants,*v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Ford et al., *Appellees.*

(299 Pac. 613.)

Opinion filed June 6, 1931.

*F. Dumont Smith, Eustace Smith*and *Arthur T. Symns,*all of Hutchinson, for the appellants.

*H. B. Daigh,*of Ashland, for the appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one by taxpayers in Ford county to enjoin levy and collection of taxes on their land for the benefit of *257a rural high-school district embracing territory in Ford and Clark counties, and known as joint rural high-school district No. 2, Clark county. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal.

The purpose of the action was to defeat tax levies by invalidating organization of the district — something which the state of Kansas failed to do in a direct action commenced on the relation of the county attorney of Ford county. *[State, ex rel., v. Rural High-school District,*128 Kan. 797, 280 Pac. 892.) The petition told part of the story appearing -in the opinion in the'state case, and the contention is that on the facts stated the state superintendent had no power, on appeal, to fix the boundaries of the proposed district. The petition disclosed, however, by direct allegation and by necessary inference, that the district is in fact functioning as a rural high-school district within boundaries fixed by the state superintendent in May, 1928, through a rural high-school board which is levying taxes and is about to sell bonds to build a schoolhouse. That being true, these taxpayers may not be heard to say the order of the state superintendent fixing boundaries to include their land was void for want of jurisdiction or for any other reason.

Plaintiffs try to sidestep the numerous decisions of this court which disqualify them to maintain this action by saying they confess there is a *de facto*district in Clark county, and all they want to do is to attack a void order of the state superintendent. Attack a void order of the state superintendent, to what end? To invalidate organization of a district lying in two counties by excluding the land lying in one county. To exclude from the district that part of it which lies in Ford county would be to disorganize the district, and disorganization is a public matter, to be attended to by the attorney-general or the county attorney acting in the name of the state.

Plaintiffs say the decision in the case of *Schur v. School*District, 112 Kan. 421, 210 Pac. 1105, is conclusive in their favor. That the. decision in the Schur case is conclusive against plaintiffs is shown in the opinion in *Scamahorn v. Perry,*132 Kan. 679, 680, 296 Pac. 347. To the list of steps in the organization of a proposed district which taxpayers may not contest, contained in the opinion in the Scamahorn case, may now be added action by the state superintendent in fixing boundaries.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160934

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
James Leslie KELLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1213

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

James Leslie Kelly, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
EX PARTE Carolyn ROBINSON

(In re: Linda Hall v. Carolyn Robinson et al.)

2170180

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 12, 2018

Mand. pet. denied.
Approved by OMB

3060-0027

Estimated time per response – 3 to 6.25 hours
EX PARTE Michael Lee FORD

1161081 (CR-16-0291)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Exhibit 31.2
 HORIZON LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Lines, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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; andc)
    
    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 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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.
  /s/ MICHAEL T. AVARA

Michael T. Avara
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)