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

I 

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of-- ) 

) 

The Boeing Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. FA8107-06-C-0001 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60411 

Seth H. Locke, Esq. 

Perkins Coie 

Washington, DC 

Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Kara M. Klaas, Esq. 

Robert L. Duecaster, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: November 20, 2018 

MARK A. MELNICK 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60411, Appeal of The Boeing 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
STATE of North Carolina v. Andre THOMPSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-607

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR THE CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS.
# C_2008037EN.01001701.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/17

---

Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-539/07)

(2008/C 37/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make call-tracing information available, within the limits of technical feasibility, to the authorities called upon to act in cases of emergency, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make call-tracing information available, within the limits of technical feasibility, to the authorities called upon to act in cases of emergency, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1);

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2002/22/EC expired on 24 July 2003.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4030 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4030

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ``Father Richard 
                 Marquess-Barry Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FATHER RICHARD MARQUESS-BARRY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Father 
Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest
      Financial Group, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      for
      the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “ Periodic
      Report ”),
      the
      undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant
      to
      Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and
      belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      May 15, 2007





/s/
                Douglas J. HerthaDouglas
                J. HerthaChief
                Financial Officer
1277.

#### Minchew *v.*Nahunta Lumber Company.

Powell, J.

1. Corporate name connotes corporate entity. This is applicable to both civil and criminal cases. *Van Winkle Gin Works*v. *Mathews,*2 *Ga. App.*249 (58 S. E. 396); *Ager*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*158 (58 S. E. 374) ; *Foley & Williams Mfg. Co.*v. *Bell, 4 Ga. App.*448 ( 61 S. E. 856); *Charles*v. *Valdosta Foundry Co., 4 Ga. App.*733 (62 S. E. 493).

2. An action may be properly instituted by employing the initials instead of the full Christian name of the defendant. “In this State men are commonly known by the initials of their Christian names as well as they are by those names in full.” Any common-law rule of practice to the contrary does not exist in this State, because of lack of suitableness to our conditions. *Eaves*v. *State,*113 *Ga.*755 (39 S. E. 318) ; *Minor*v. *State,*63 *Ga.*318; *Turner*v. *Thompson,*58 *Ga.*271 (36 Am. R. 297).

3. The order of the examination of witnesses and the allowance of leading questions are matters so largely in the discretion of the trial judge as to warrant no interference, except in eases of manifest abuse. There was no abuse of discretion in the present ease.

4. The question of the value of an article is peculiarly for the jury, and that body is not absolutely bound by the opinions or estimates of the witness on that subject. *Morris Storage Co.*v. *Wilkes,*1 *Ga. App.*752 (58 S. E. 232); *Atlantia Coast Line R. Co.*v. Harris, 1 *Ga. App.*667 (57 S. E. 1030). *Judgment affirmed.*

*155Trover, from city court of Brunswick — Judge Krauss. June 19, 1908.

Argued October 28,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*Francis H. Harris,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bennet <& Conyers,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                       110
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              13819
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                26144
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           44032
<PP&E>                                                     24378
<DEPRECIATION>                                              6202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             64279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      30993
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   12750
<OTHER-SE>                                                 14951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               64279
<SALES>                                                   100129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          100129
<CGS>                                                      88254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              88254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             2807
<INCOME-TAX>                                                1053
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         1754
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                1754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.27
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 14.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on  Form F-3 (No. 333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399) and in the related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (No. 333-118897, 333-113420, 333-141306, 333-139717) pertaining to the Employees' Stock Option Plan of Pointer Telocation Ltd. of our report dated March 30, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pointer Telocation Ltd., included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer

A Member of Ernst & Young Global




Tel-Aviv, Israel


March 30, 2011
Order entered February 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00143-CV

JACKIE LYN TAYLOR, L.V.N. FORMER EMPLOYEE OF BROOKDALE SENIOR 

LIVING PLANO, Appellant

V.

SHERRIE SAMARI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIR TO AND REPRESENTATIVE OF 

THE ESTATE OF FRANK ALLEN PONATH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-02029-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Sheri J. Vecera’s February 12, 2019 request for 

extension of time to file the record. We GRANT the extension request and ORDER the record 

be filed no later than February 19, 2019. 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.31

                       AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                       NONEMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN OF
                        JAYHAWK ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


     Section 3.1 of the Amended and Restated Nonemployee Stock Option Plan of
Jayhawk Acceptance Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

     "3.1  Stock Option Committee.  The Plan shall be administered by the
           ----------------------
     Committee.  The Committee shall consist of not less than two (2) members of
     the Board of Directors, and, except as is provided in the immediately
     following sentence, may be constituted by all members of the Board of
     Directors.  In the event that the Stock is registered under Section 12 of
     the Act, all members of the Committee shall be Non-Employee Directors, as
     defined in Rule 16b-3 promulgated under the Act."


DATED:  November 6, 1997

                                /s/ Carl H. Westcott
                              ------------------------------------------
                              Carl H. Westcott, Chairman of the Board of
                              Jayhawk Acceptance Corporation
STATE of North Carolina v. Arthur F. GRAHAM

No. COA17-66

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

NO ERROR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              27,032
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               4,221
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                         0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         44,684
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             161,481
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               163,140
<LOANS>                                            239,759
<ALLOWANCE>                                          1,484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     490,358
<DEPOSITS>                                         337,069
<SHORT-TERM>                                         5,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  6,598
<LONG-TERM>                                         68,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               529
<OTHER-SE>                                          72,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     490,358
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                     11,501
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   15,747
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     2,382
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                    29,630
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  13,368
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,403
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                               15,227
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           72
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                      16
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      9,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      6,341
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           6,341
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,871
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        3.53
<LOANS-NON>                                             56
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1,747
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     1,463
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                            0
<RECOVERIES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    1,484
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 1,484
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              1,484



</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ROBERT A. BURNES, JD, MLS,

Appellant,

v.

KIMBERLY BURNES and

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appellees.

No. 2D22-4103

September 1, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Rebecca Hamilton, Judge.

Robert Alexander Burnes JD, MLS, pro se.

Brandon S. Vesely of The Florida Appellate Firm, P.A., St. Petersburg, for 

Appellee, Kimberly Burnes.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Toni C. Bernstein, Sr. Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Department of Revenue.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, LUCAS, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
DERRICK L. LOTT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4971

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 25, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

J. Bradford Stetson, Judge.

Derrick L. Lott, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, C. J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00118-CV

______________________________

ANTHONY ANTWAN GORDON, A/K/A 

CODY ANTWAN GORDON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court

 Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22401

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Antwan Gordon, a/k/a Cody Antwan Gordon, has filed a notice of appeal from an

order that directed the inmate trust account of this indigent appellant to be garnished for over

$10,000.00. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 501.014 (Vernon 2004). 

In order to perfect an appeal to this Court from the August 7, 2008, order of garnishment,

Gordon was required to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of that date, on or before

September 8, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The rule also provides a fifteen-day grace period,

which would have expired September 23. This notice of appeal was filed October 9, 2008. It is

untimely and cannot serve to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

We have no jurisdiction over this appeal. There being no timely notice of appeal from the

garnishment, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 21, 2008

Date Decided: October 22, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. Ray Charles STRICKLAND.

No. 92P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 2016.

Ray Charles Strickland, for Strickland, Ray Charles.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Richmond County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,458
<PP&E>                                         208,190
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,542
<BONDS>                                         42,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,611
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Richard PRIDGEN

344P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 03, 2017

Paul F. Herzog, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Pridgen, Richard.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of October 2016 by State of NC to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50280

Conference Calendar

LARRY LEE BUTLER

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Correctional Officer TERRY MOLINAR; Lieutenant KENNETH ADAMS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-23

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Lee Butler, Texas prisoner # 1116378, moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s determination that

his appeal is not taken in good faith. Butler moves for appointment of counsel

and for leave to file a supplemental brief; these motions are denied.

Butler appeals from the district court’s disposition of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. Butler contends that he was deprived of due process when the

defendants took his clip-on shades and that the defendants committed theft by

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50280

2

taking his shades. He further contends that he was retaliated against for

availing himself of the legal system.

Because Texas has adequate postdeprivation remedies for the confiscation

of prisoner property, Butler may not raise this claim under § 1983. See

Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 1983). Moreover, Butler has

failed to allege a chronology of events indicating retaliation against him. See

Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).

Butler’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Butler’s

complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-

88 (5th Cir. 1996). Butler has one previous strike. Butler v. Tucker, No. 4:96-

CV-00379-A (N.D. Tex. May 31, 1996). Because Butler has now accumulated

three strikes, he is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.