alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

 
 December 4, 2014 

 
 Steve Filton 

Senior Vice President & CFO 

UHS of Delaware, Inc. 
 367 South Gulph Road 
 King of Prussia, PA 19406 

 
 Dear Steve; 

 
 The Board of Trustees of Universal Health Realty Income
Trust, at today’s meeting, authorized the renewal of the current Advisory Agreement between Universal Health Realty Income Trust and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (“Agreement”) upon the same terms and conditions. 

 
 This letter constitutes Universal Health Realty Income
Trust’s offer to renew the Agreement, through December 31, 2015, upon the same terms and conditions. Please acknowledge UHS of Delaware’s acceptance of this offer by signing in the space provided below and returning one copy of this
letter to me. Thank you. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	/s/ Cheryl K. Ramagano
	 Cheryl K. Ramagano

Vice President and Treasurer


  

			
	Agreed and Accepted:
	
	UHS OF DELAWARE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steve Filton

	 Steve Filton

	 Senior Vice President and CFO



  
 CC:
Charles Boyle
### NUMBER 13 - 13 - 00 641 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ J OSE ALFREDO GARCIA , Appellant ,
v. C ARLOS ABREGO , Appellee
.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Jose Alfredo Garcia , attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 404th District Court of Cameron, County, Texas, in cause no. 2011

- DCL

4788

- G

. Appellant’s amended notice of appeal states he is appealing a judgment dated October 30, 2013.2

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there is no final appealable judgment dated October 30, 2013 . The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that ste ps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of th e Court’s notice, the appeal would be dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction. A ppellant has responded by providing a copy of a final judgment issued in cause no. 2011

- DCL

- 4788

- G , signed May 7, 2012. Based on the Court’s review of another appeal involving the same parties, Garcia v. Abrego , Cause No. 13

- 12

- 00390

- CV, 2013 Tex. App. WL 4033969 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 08, 2013, no pet.)(per curiam), the matter subject to appeal herein has already been addressed. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3( a ),(c). W e dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 17th day of April, 2014

.
# L_2008207EN.01004401.xml

| 5.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 207/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 207/44

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 467/2008 of 28 May 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 139 of 29 May 2008
  )

On page 13, Article 1(4)(a), replacing Article 19a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001:

for:

‘ ‘1.   Articles 308a to 308d(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 shall apply to the quotas given in Annex VIIa and provided for in:’ ’,

read:

‘ ‘1.   Articles 308a to 308c(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 shall apply to the quotas given in Annex VIIa and provided for in:’ ’.

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil and Water Management Research: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Soil and Water Management Research People Brent Dalzell





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

Personal Backgroundheadline bar **Education** A.A. – Anoka Ramsey Community College 1995 B.S. in Biology – University of Wisconsin – LaCrosse 1997 M.S. in Water Resources Science – University of Minnesota 2000 Ph.D. in Earth and Atmospheric Science – Purdue University 2004  **Professional Experience** PostDoctoral Researcher 2005-2007; Old Dominion University (Dept. of Chemistry) and University of Minnesota-Duluth (Large Lakes Observatory) Research Associate 2007-2020; University of Minnesota (Dept. of Soil, Water, and Climate) Research Soil Scientist 2020-current; USDA/ARS (St. Paul, MN)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Order entered March 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00305-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.T.G., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-12707

ORDER

This is an appeal from a final judgment of divorce entered after the trial court severed the custody 

issues in the divorce suit from the divorce and property issues. Pending before the Court are (1) 

appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’s record with the record of a contempt hearing held in the 

custody suit, (2) appellant’s motion to direct the reporter to deliver the recording of the October 15, 2012 

final hearing in the divorce to another reporter for “proper transcribing,” and (3) appellee’s unopposed 

motion for extension of time to file brief. Because the contempt hearing was held in the custody suit and 

this appeal concerns the divorce, we DENY appellant’s motion to supplement. We further DENY 

appellant’s request to have another reporter transcribe the record of the October 15th final hearing without 

prejudice to refiling a motion in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e). We 

GRANT appellee’s extension motion and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court March 5, 

2014 filed as of the date of this order. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2254 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2254

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Cypermethrin.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CYPERMETHRIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.70      ( + )-a-Cyano(3-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         phenoxyphenyl)met                                                  31/2009
                         hyl ( + )-
                         cis,trans-3-(2,2-
                         dichloroethenyl)-
                         2,2-
                         dimethylcycloprop
                         anecarboxylate
                         (Cypermethrin)
                         (CAS No. 52315-07-
                         8) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2926.90.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALONZO COLEMAN JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3538

[July 10, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Lawrence Michael Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

432009CF000448B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Claire Victoria Madill, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. 

Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals a written revocation order and consequent 

sentence. He argues the order incorrectly contains violations not orally 

pronounced by the trial court, and the trial court’s attempt to fix the error 

was untimely and therefore void. The State agrees to remand the case to 

correct the revocation order, but suggests the conviction and sentence 

should not be disturbed. We agree.

“Where a written order does not conform to the court’s oral 

pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the oral pronouncement 

prevails.” Ellis v. State, 816 So. 2d 759, 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “[A]n 

oral pronouncement will most certainly prevail where the state concedes 

that the written sentence was in error.” Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689, 691 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Here, the trial court orally pronounced that the defendant committed 

five Condition 5 violations (the new law offenses that he was acquitted for) 

and one Condition 6 violation (associating with the co-defendants). 
2

However, the signed probation revocation order listed not only these six 

violations, but it also included a Condition 2 violation (failing to pay the 

cost of supervision) and a Condition 10 violation (failing to pay court costs), 

neither of which were orally pronounced because the State agreed not to 

proceed on those violations.

The defendant filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentence and 

the State conceded the error. The trial court granted the motion and 

ordered the Department of Corrections to file a corrected order, but the 

order was entered more than 60 days after the filing of the Rule 3.800(b)(2) 

motion. It is therefore a nullity.

“A 3.800(b)(2) motion is deemed denied, and the trial court’s 

jurisdiction ends, once 60 days elapse without rendition of an order ruling 

on the motion, and any order rendered more than 60 days after a rule 

3.800(b)(2) motion is filed is a nullity.” Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572, 

573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 

We therefore affirm and remand the case for the court to correct the 

scrivener’s error.

Affirmed, but remanded for correction of a scrivener’s error.

FORST, J., and SASSER, MEENU, Associate Judge, concur.1

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

 

1 Judge Sasser participated in the consideration and disposition of this case prior 

to her untimely passing. See Bowles v. D. Mitchell Investments, Inc., 365 So. 2d 

1028, 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005,
of Alion Science and Technology Corporation;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 we 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)
    
    [Paragraph reserved in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in
SEC Release 34-47986]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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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.
 Date: January 31, 2006
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bahman AtefiName:
    
    Bahman AtefiTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
Balance Sheet at October 2, 1999, Statement of Income at April 3, 1999. Other SE
is retained earnings. Interest Expense is net interest income.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                          2,989,762
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   670,237
<ALLOWANCES>                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                     2,438,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,130,263
<PP&E>                          3,925,236
<DEPRECIATION>                  3,181,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,073,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           881,289
<BONDS>                         13,787
<COMMON>                        5,016,468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      1,161,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,073,500
<SALES>                         4,002,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,999,793
<CGS>                           3,615,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,067,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (77,779)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (987,368)
<INCOME-TAX>                    14,865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,002,233)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,002,233)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.33)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7689** 

STEVE LESTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
MICHAEL HENTHORNE OF LITTLER MENDELSON PC , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 3:1 4

- cv - 03625

- TMC )

Submitted : February 12 , 2015 Decided: February 19 , 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Steve Lester, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Steve Lester appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 1 2 ) complaint without prejudice

. * The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( 2012 ). The magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed and advised Lester that failure to timely file specifi c objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the subst ance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Lester has waived appellate review by failing to fil e specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we grant Lester’s pending motion to amend his informal brief and affirm the judgment of the district court.

* We conclude that the district court’s order is final and appealable as no amendment could cure the defect identified by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993).3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
| 1.     | The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended January 31, 2011 (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/ Denis A. Krusos       |   |
|----------------|---------------------------|--------|
|           | Denis A. Krusos           |   |
|           | Chairman of the Board and |   |
| March 17, 2011 | Chief Executive Officer   |   |
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I, Marvin Rounick, President and Chief Executive Officer of Deb Shops, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: June 9, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

|   |   |   |                                                                                |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Marvin Rounick                                                                  |
|   |   |   |  

 

 

Marvin RounickPresident and Chief Executive Officer

  |