alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
            Financial Data Schedule June 30, 2000
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0000075053
<NAME>                D-LANZ DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.


     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial statements for the period from inception, six month periods ended June
30,  2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                            35,965
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,204,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,804,003
<PP&E>                                           969,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (175,191)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,893,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,326,471
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,541,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,893,069
<SALES>                                        1,642,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,642,634
<CGS>                                          1,282,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,907,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  50,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (1,547,613)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,547,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,661,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,661,027)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.10)




</TABLE>
#### Robert E. BUTLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7218.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

Robert E. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Edward Butler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from a final order denying relief under this section unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petition can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a *125valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Butler has not made the requisite showing. *Butler v. Young,*No. CA-02-56 (E.D.Va. July 16, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Butler’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and to strike Appellee’s response to these motions. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Mabel C. Golding, Respondent, v. John N. Golding, Appellant.

Order modified by reducing alimony to $500 per month, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

Chief J ustice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

p0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140626

BEVELYN FISHER, Personal Representative of the Estate of TIARA FISHER, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140626 COA: 288106 Oakland CC: 07-087761-NI SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SOUTHFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, and YOLETTA PATRICE HALL, Defendants-Appellees,

and

RICHARD JAMES FARRELL, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Joseph A. Molino, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of P& F Industries, Inc.

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosed in this quarterly reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting that arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| May 17, 2004 |                         | /s/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr. |   |
|--------------|------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| Date         | Joseph A. Molino, Jr.        |
|         | Principal  Financial Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

 

(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.

 

 
| /s/  Joseph A. Molino, Jr. |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Joseph A. Molino, Jr.      |
| Principal Financial Officer     |
|                            |
|                            |
| August 13, 2008            |

 

----
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1661

Lower Tribunal No. 2016-CF-009592-A-O

_____________________________

KEYRON CURRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Renee A. Roche, Judge.

May 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOZNIAK, WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
State of New York

Court of Appeals This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to 

revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 44 SSM 1

David J. Lemieux,

 Appellant,

 v.

Alton E. Horn et al.,

 Respondents.

Aaron D. Fine, for appellant.

James W. Cunningham, for respondents.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with 

costs. The Appellate Division correctly concluded that defendant established prima facie 

entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether 

he suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of 

the accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 573-575 [2005]; Franchini v Palmieri, 1 

NY3d 536, 537 [2003]). Acting Chief Judge Cannataro and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, 

Singas and Troutman concur.

Decided March 16, 2023
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 536 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 536

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To prohibit the use of Highway 209 within the Delaware Water Gap 
National Recreation Area by certain commercial vehicles, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

    (a) In General.--Effective at noon on September 30, 2005, the use 
of Highway 209 within Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area by 
commercial vehicles, when such use is not connected with the operation 
of the recreation area, is prohibited, except as provided in subsection 
(b).
    (b) Local Business Use Protected.--Subsection (a) does not apply 
with respect to the use of commercial vehicles to serve businesses 
located within or in the vicinity of the recreation area, as determined 
by the Secretary.
    (c) Conforming Provisions.--(1) Paragraphs (1) through (3) of the 
third undesignated paragraph under the heading ``ADMINISTRATIVE 
PROVISIONS'' in chapter VII of title I of Public Law 98-63 (97 Stat. 
329) are repealed, effective September 30, 2005.
    (2) Prior to noon on September 30, 2005, the Secretary shall 
collect and utilize a commercial use fee from commercial vehicles in 
accordance with paragraphs (1) through (3) of such third undesignated 
paragraph. Such fee shall not exceed $25 per trip.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 536

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To prohibit the use of Highway 209 within the Delaware Water Gap 
National Recreation Area by certain commercial vehicles, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-16-00381-CR 

The State of Texas 

v. 

Randall Lee Binkley 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From the 415th District Court 

of Parker County (CR16-0307) 

February 8, 2018 

Opinion by Justice Pittman 

(p)

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellant The State of Texas shall pay all of the 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman_________________ 

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 816

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the treatment of

certain transportation and subsistence expenses of retired judges.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1995

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to

the treatment of certain transportation and subsistence

expenses of retired judges.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 456(f) of title 28, United States Code, is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(f) The official duty station of a retired judge shall

6 be established in accordance with section 374 of this title.

7 The official duty station of a retired judge shall be consid8 ered as his or her home for purposes of section 162 of

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and regulations issued

10 thereunder. Reimbursed transportation and subsistence
2

•HR 816 IH

1 expenses paid under this section to a retired judge recalled

2 or designated and assigned to perform judicial duties

3 shall, if such expenses are not allowable as a deduction

4 under such section 162 after the application of the preced5 ing sentence, be excludable from income under such Code,

6 whether or not the judge is required to remain away from

7 his or her official duty station overnight in performing

8 such duties, and regardless of the duration of such

9 duties.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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



April 29, 2004
                                               /S/ NEAL E. SCHMALE
                                              ______________________
                                               Neal E. Schmale
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 21, 2021

b0414

Order 

Clerk

April 21, 2021

162249

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 162249

COA: 353958

Oakland CC: 1999-166149-FC

JOHNNY LEROY STANLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2020 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Annual Report of Gardner Denver, Inc.(the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Helen W. Cornell, Vice President,Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant toRule 13a-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of    operations of the Company.     /s/ Helen W. Cornell       Helen W. Cornell     Vice President, Finance and          Chief Financial Officer     Gardner Denver, Inc.     March 14, 2006
88
#### E. B. Locke v. State.

No. 24659.

November 30, 1949.

Unverified Motion To Reinstate Appeal Overruled (Without Written Opinion) January 4, 1950.

*W. J. Lowe,*Clarendon, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of drunk driving and by the jury fined the sum of $50.00, and from a judgment thereunder he appeals.

This cause was tried on August 3, 1949, and judgment rendered on the same date. Notice of appeal was entered of record on August 24, 1949, and the amount of bond was fixed at the sum of $150.00.

It is now made known to this court that neither a recognizance nor an appeal bond has been entered into by the appellant, and that he is not confined in jail. The state’s attorney moves to dismiss the appeal. See Art. 830, note 2, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., Vol. 3, and cases cited; also Grant v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 9, 7 S. W. (2d) 90; and Tristan v. State, 112 Texas Crim. Rep. 682, 16 S. W. (2d) 1081.

The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED UNITED STATES TAX AGREEMENT 

for 
 NCL CORPORATION
LTD. 
 This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the AMENDED AND RESTATED UNITED STATES TAX AGREEMENT of NCL Corporation Ltd., a company
organized under the laws of Bermuda is made effective as of April 9, 2014, by Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., a company organized under the laws of Bermuda and the Members, as defined in the Agreement.  

A. The Members and the Company entered into that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED UNITED STATES TAX AGREEMENT on January 24, 2013 (the
“Agreement”). 
 B. The Company and the Members desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement shall be amended as follows: 

1. Tax Distributions. Section 3(b)(i) of the Agreement shall be amended by adding the following sentence to the end of such
Section: 
 “Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Company shall not be required to make a Tax Distribution pursuant to this
Section 3(b) to any Member who is not a current director, officer or employee of the Company or any of its affiliates at the time such distribution is to be made, as determined in the sole discretion of the Company.” 

2. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent set for in this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. If the provisions of
this Amendment conflict with the provisions of the Agreement, then the provisions of this Amendment shall prevail. 
 3. Governing
Law. This Amendment shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of Delaware. 
 4.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, including by facsimile transmission, with the effect as if all parties had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute
one instrument. 
 ***** 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above. 
  

			
	NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS LTD.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kevin M. Sheehan
		 	 Name: Kevin M. Sheehan
 Title: President and
Chief Executive Officer