alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rex SWEAT, as Sheriff of the County of Duval, State of Florida, Appellant, v. Paul R. AKIN et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Jan. 29, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1954.

Edward S. Hemphill, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Charles R. Scott and Walter G. Arnold, Jacksonville, for appellees.

MATHEWS, Justice.

This case involves the status, duties and jurisdiction of sheriffs and deputy sheriffs under the provisions of Chapter 22263, Special Acts of 1943, entitled, “An Act Providing Civil Service for Employees of Duval County and Creating a Civil Service Board for Said County.”

The main difference between this suit and that of Blackburn v. Brorein, Fla., 70 So.2d 293, is that in this case the Special Act is with reference to Duval County, and in the other case it is with reference to Hillsborough County. The same questions are involved.

Reversed on the authority of Blackburn v. Brorein.

ROBERTS, C. J., THOMAS and SE-BRING, JJ., and LOPEZ, Associate Justice, concur.

TERRELL, J., dissents.

HOBSON, J., not participating.
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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
R. Royall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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.

Date:  April 14, 2004


/S/Richard R. Royall
--------------------
Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Information Card Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 18, 2008, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Information Card Foundation 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Wave 
Systems, Lee, MA; IDology, Inc., Atlanta, GA; ooTao, Berkeley, CA; 
FuGen, Sunnyvale, CA; fun communications, Karlsruhe, GERMANY; IP 
Commerce, Denver, CO; Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, GERMANY; Ping Identity, 
Denver, CO; e-backgroundchecks.com, Inc., Dallas, TX; A.T.E. Software, 
Frankfurt, GERMANY; Parity Communications, Needham, MA; Daniel 
Bartholomew (individual member), Kirrawee, NSW, AUSTRALIA; Privo, 
Vienna, VA; Gemalto, Austin, TX; and Kim Cameron (individual member), 
Bellvue, WA have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Information Card Foundation intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On June 2, 2008, Information Card Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40883).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-21740 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, David Micek, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Eagle Broadband, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.





|                    |     |                                      
|------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|Date: July 23, 2007 | By: | /s/ DAVID MICEK                      
|                    |     | David Micek                          
|                    |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1196 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1196

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow State and local 
     taxes to be deducted in computing the alternative minimum tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow State and local 
     taxes to be deducted in computing the alternative minimum tax.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES ALLOWED IN COMPUTING 
              ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

    (a) In General.--The last sentence of section 56(b)(1)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations on deductions) 
is amended by inserting before the period ``and shall not apply to 
State and local taxes''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Geovanny Tapia

Criminal No. 06-cr-147-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

19) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: May 3, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Henry Brennan, Jr., Esq.

Terry Ollila, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00147-JD Document 20 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD

Gordon Reid

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Gordon Reid has filed a motion for transcripts of his

criminal trial to be produced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e). 

At the same time, Reid has filed motions to hold in abeyance his

motions to dismiss and for disqualification pending production of

the trial transcripts. The government has no objection to Reid’s

motion for transcripts or to his motions to hold motions in

abeyance.

The motion for transcripts and the motions to hold in

abeyance are granted. The deputy clerk has informed the court

that it will take thirty days for the court reporters to produce

transcripts of the trial. At present, the second trial in this

case is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. Given the

time necessary to produce the requested transcripts and the

additional time that will be necessary to permit Reid and the

government to review those transcripts, the trial will have to be

rescheduled to accommodate Reid’s requests.

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 187 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons the defendant’s motions for

transcripts and to hold his motions to dismiss and for

disqualification in abeyance (documents nos. 173, 174, and 175)

are granted. The trial now scheduled to begin on April 4, 2006,

will be rescheduled when the transcript has been filed.

This order does not change any of the previously established

deadlines.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 13, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esquire

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, Esquire

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 187 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Order entered September 10 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00314

- CV

IN RE SCOTT PELLEY, P.C., SCOTT PELLEY, AND THE PELLEY

FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Orig inal Proceeding from the 15th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 11

- 1026

O RDER

Relators have filed a motion for clarification and enforcement of our August 31, 2021 order in this case directing the trial court to rule within thirty days on Relators’ Request for Order to Return $400,000 Deposit in Lieu of Bond Wrongfully Distributed by the District Clerk and Motion for Entry of Amended Judgment for Damages (the motion). Relators inform us that the trial court has

indic ated there will be an evidentiary hearing on the motion and the court will hear evidence from both sides concerning the motion. Relators state that our order did not remand the case to the trial court for additional evidence but only ordered the

trial cou rt to rule on the motion. Relators ask that we order the trial judge not to conduct any further evidentiary hearings in this matter.

The motion was not on appeal but remained before the trial court while Relators sought a petition for writ of mandamus. The trial court has yet to rule on the motion, so it has remained pending before the trial court since Relators filed it nearly two years ago on October 25, 2019. Just as this Court declines to instruct the trial court on how to rule on the motion, we als o decline to instruct the trialcourt on what hearings it may conduct and what evidence it may consider in

reaching that ruling. Such matters are within the discretion of the trial court.

Accordingly, Relators’ motion for clarification and enforcement se eking an order instructing the trial court not to conduct further evidentiary hearings is

DENIED

.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7071 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7071

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the educator 
   expense deduction and allow early childhood educators to take the 
                   deduction, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2022

 Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. 
Norton, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Soto, 
 and Mr. Vargas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the educator 
   expense deduction and allow early childhood educators to take the 
                   deduction, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Expand Education Deduction for 
Teachers Act.''

SEC. 2. EDUCATOR EXPENSE DEDUCTION INCREASED, INCLUDES EARLY CHILDHOOD 
              EDUCATORS.

    (a) In General.--Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)(D)--
                    (A) by striking the heading and inserting ``Certain 
                expenses of early childhood, elementary, and secondary 
                school teachers.'', and
                    (B) by striking ``not in excess of $250'' and 
                inserting ``not in excess of $2,000'',
            (2) in subsection (d)(1)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``kindergarten through grade 12 
                teacher'' and inserting, ``early childhood educator, 
                kindergarten through grade 12 teacher'', and
                    (B) by striking ``in a school'' and inserting ``in 
                a school or early childhood education program'', and
            (3) by adding at the end of subsection (d)(1) the following 
        new subparagraph:
            ``(C) Early childhood education program.--For purposes of 
        this paragraph, the term `early childhood education program' 
        has the meaning given such term in section 103(8) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1003(8)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to expenses incurred in taxable years beginning after December 
31, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
213 La. 129

#### STATE v. CALLOWAY.

No. 38790.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1948.

Rudolph F. Becker, Jr., of New Orleans, for - appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herve Racivitch, Dist. Atty., and Beuker F. Amann, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

BOND, Justice.

The defendant, Wilson Calloway, having been convicted of “simple battery” upon a 15 year old girl, was sentenced to serve 7 months in the Parish Prison. He is appealing from his conviction and sentence, relying for the reversal thereof on a lone bill of exception reserved to the trial judge’s ruling in refusing his motion for a new trial, the basis of which is that the verdict is “unjust and unfair” and “contrary to the law and evidence”. This motion presents only a question of fact over which we have no appellate jurisdiction. Art. 516, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only when there is no evidence at all to support the crime charged or an essential element thereof that this court is authorized to review the evidence. State v. Nomey, 204 La. 667, 16 So.2d 226, and State v. Valentine, 203 La. 1057, 1058, 14 So.2d 851.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent.
Nebraska State Court Form 

I ' FILED 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

DIST ICT 0F N[8RA St{A 

ZGZ3 JUH -5 1 f: 33 

CC 3:28 Rev. 07/2021 

couNTY NEs~f~·~ OF r;-;1. 1ERJ IN THEOS l)ISt COURT OF 1)0UC,. LAS 

Case No. 

(case number assigned by clerk of court) 

J 

Plaintiff/Petitioner , 

VS . 

c:,.+. o..\ . Defendant/Respondent . 

I, · \~v\5 ~'J' , being duly sworn under oath, say: 

(your fulf name) 

···- r ~~ ... wJbt __ :!1,e., t~ ___ :b ~c'-~ -A~-- -c.l<LS.s_aL~oYl Su.r!-•. J _C.CU\~J _

--~ e: ~-TI~~~-=G~ty-_15151: :i 1i1e:·Me_ o..~~dc.cowd ... :Os~:t ··\ ~~:~:. _ 

.=. w~~-t~_c.,uu\r:,} __ cS.foccL _o~e_~ fhi5_ -~ ---,-.~- _-_::_ 

--w-1t\G-~')~-- ~ Y ........... ~ .... :fcltb-d ~ . ~,,;1-c ~-

s1GN IN FRONT OF NOT AA.Y PUBLIC 

I hereby swea;J}r affi~m, under penalty of perjury, that the above information is true. 

~ ~ Date: s-as-a) 

Signature _ \f'O.u ~ ~/ 7 \ 0 5 1 lflt 5J. 

Your Name . Street At ress/P.O. Box 

Pk,. ... e- a.Ni &a;/ t, rec~cl Ow\o/ Plti.,''\4~ Ot\tjl_J".~, NE . /aitoa r . I • J--4:l City/State/Z.IPC. ode . 1T01J,SC:a'f. l'l(@~~\,C.0"1 7\2.-5;}.6-ltfl8' I\.UFc:e_r • .. - --t,ra.v's ~ ox@~, ~l.(ikecvtl"a.(4. _ Phone Email Address 

State of -~e-_b_r~o.s~ko.. _ ____ ) 

J) \ ) SS. 

County of O1⁄2fjJ°'5 ) 

This document was acknowledged before me by _______________ _ 

this ____ day of ______ , 20 __ . 

_______________ Notary commission expires: ______ _ 

Signature of Judge/Clerk of the Court/Notary Public 

Title: ___________ Serial Number (if any): 

Page 1 of 1 Affidavit
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens ‘n Things,Inc. for the quarterly period ended June30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), Robert J. DiNicola, as Chief Executive Officer of Linens‘n Things, Inc., and Francis M. Rowan, asChief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Linens‘n Things, Inc.

 
| /s/ Robert J. DiNicola |                      |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
| **Name:**              | Robert J. DiNicola        |
| **Title:**             | Chairman and Chief        |
|                   | Executive Officer         |
| **Date:**              | August 14, 2007           |
| ** **             |                      |
| ** **             |                      |
| /s/ Francis M.  Rowan  |                      |
| **Name:**              | Francis M. Rowan          |
| **Title:**             | Senior Vice President and |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer   |
| **Date:**              | August 14, 2007           |
|                        |                           |  |

 

----
Exhibit 99.2

#### 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 Covance Inc.
(Covance) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, William E. Klitgaard, Chief Financial Officer of
Covance, 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 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 Covance.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2003

| |                                                                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ WILLIAM E. KLITGAARD                                                                           
| | William E. Klitgaard                                                                               
| | Corporate Senior Vice President
     and Chief Financial Officer
     (Principal Financial Officer)

24
#### CITY OF STUART v. GREEN.

No. 8437.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 1938.

For former opinion, see 91 F.2d 603, 113 A.L.R. 560.

Edward J. Smith, Jr., of Stuart, Fla., and Robt. R. Milan, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Carroll Dunscombe, of Stuart, Fla., for respondent

Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of this court reversing the judgment of the District Court for want of jurisdiction in that court was entered on July 15, 1937. Rehearing was denied August 13, 1937. A second application for rehearing was dimissed September 11, 1937. The opinion is silent as to costs. The mandate directed the taxing of only the costs of appeal against appellee. The motion is on the ground that this court having held that the District Court was without jurisdiction, no costs could be taxed. While -we held that the District Court was without-jurisdiction, this court had jurisdiction to reverse the judgment on that ground. The costs of appeal were therefore taxable. Where the opinion is silent as to costs, costs of appeal automatically follow the judgment.

No clerical error appearing, the motion is denied.