alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ADOLFO LEONEL PENA

,

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. 1D 14

- 2786

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed February 20, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Denise Ferrero , Judge

.

Adolfo Leonel Pena, pro se, Appellant; Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and

Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
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 Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raymond F. Kunzmann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the 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.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Raymond F. Kunzmann
---------------------------
Raymond F. Kunzmann
Chief Financial Officer
February 13, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel, October 17, 2008, 
10 a.m. to October 17, 2008, 12 p.m. Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill 
Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the Federal Register 
on September 8, 2008, FR Doc. E8-20642.
    Time change from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. to 8 a.m.-9:30 a.m. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-23781 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
##### 



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 Annual Report of Giga-tronics Incorporated (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 29, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
H. Cosmez II, Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the 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/ MARK H. COSMEZ II
Mark H. Cosmez II
Chief Financial Officer
| |                                                                
| | May 27, 2003                                                   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Giga-tronics and will be retained by Giga-tronics and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

46
BANDAG, INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

          THIS  TERMINATION  AGREEMENT  is  entered  into as of the  20th day of
January,  2000  by  and  between  Bandag,  Incorporated,   an  Iowa  corporation
("Bandag") and Sam Ferrise II ("Employee").

                                    RECITALS

          WHEREAS,  Bandag and Employee  are parties to that  certain  Severance
Agreement  dated  as of  the  4th  day  of  May,  1999  (the  "Bandag  Severance
Agreement"); and

          WHEREAS,  Employee is voluntarily  terminating  his employment and all
positions  with  Bandag  and is  simultaneously  being  employed  as an  at-will
employee by Tire Distribution  Systems,  Inc. ("TDS"), an indirect  wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bandag; and

          WHEREAS,  contemporaneously  with  the  execution  of a new  severance
agreement  between  Employee and TDS, the parties  hereto wish to terminate  the
Bandag Severance Agreement in its entirety;

          NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration of the covenants and agreements of
the parties herein  contained,  the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by each
party, the parties hereto agree as follows:

          1.   Effective  with the execution and delivery by Employee and TDS of
               a  severance  agreement  between  Employee  and TDS,  the  Bandag
               Severance  Agreement  shall  be  terminated  and  shall  be of no
               further  force  or  effect  and all  obligations  of  Bandag  and
               Employee thereunder shall thereupon terminate.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Termination
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

Employee:                            Bandag, Incorporated


/s/ Sam Ferrise II                   By: /s/ Martin G. Carver
---------------------------------        -------------------------------------
Sam Ferrise II                           Martin G. Carver, Chairman of the
                                         Board, Chief Executive Officer and
                                         President
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50062 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LARRY CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:08-CR-222-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Larry Calloway appeals the 3 6-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. He argues t h a t his sentence, which was above the recommended range, is plai nly u n r e a sonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing o bj e c t i v es of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review sentences imposed on revocation of su p e r v i s e d release under the plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Mille r , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Ca l l o way did not object in the district court. Therefore, we U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 2, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50062 Document: 00511610108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2011No. 11-50062

review his appeal for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett v. United States , 129 S. Ct. 14 2 3, 1429 (2009). Because the 36-month sentence Calloway received on revocation was not greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” United States

v. Pena , 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, this court has routinely upheld s e n t e n c e s o n r e vo c a tion greater than the advisory policy range but within the statutory m a x i m u m . See United States v. Milligan , 353 F. App’x 954 (5th Cir. 2009)(unpublished); United States v. Jones , 182 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Thus, there is no plain error with regard to Calloway’s 36- 1 month sentence. See Puckett , 129 S. Ct. at 1429. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Altho ugh thes e unpub lis hed dec isi ons are not pr ece dent , we cit e them as exem plar s 1 of se nten ces up heldby our cour t in the pas t. 2 Case: 11-50062 Document: 00511610108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1352 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1352

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the ``Dr. Francis 
                    Townsend Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DR. FRANCIS TOWNSEND POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Dr. Francis Townsend 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 ``Dr. 
Francis Townsend Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate May 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1352

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the ``Dr. Francis 
                    Townsend Post Office Building''.
```
EXHIBIT 10.10


                               AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
                          EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


             THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREE to extend the Executive Employment
   Agreement, dated November 1, 1998, between them (as later amended and
   extended, the "Agreement"), until the later of October 31, 2000 or one
   year after the ocurrence of a Change in Control of the Company (as defined
   in the Agreement), in the event of a Change in Control of the Company shall
   have occurred on or prior to October 31, 2000.

             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument
   as of the 31st day of October, 1997.




                                      TBC CORPORATION


                                      By /s/ Louis S. DiPasqua

                                         Louis S. DiPasqua,
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer



                                         /s/ Kenneth P. Dick

                                         KENNETH P. DICK








                                      -51-
#### Arthur Bukhatetsky, Respondent, v Dzmitry Vysotski, Defendant, and Elaine Kaplinsky et al., Appellants.

[745 NYS2d 53]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Elaine Kaplinsky and Igor Kaplinsky appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated October 19, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

On August 3, 1999, the plaintiff was injured when he was bitten by a dog. Approximately four months before the incident, the appellants sold the dog to the defendant Dzmitry Vysotski. However, they failed to notify the authorities of the change of ownership (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 113). The appellants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff opposed the motion, inter alia, on the ground that the dog was still formally registered to the appellants on the day of the accident. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence proving that Vysotski had sole possessory interest in the dog, and dominion and control over it on the date of the accident. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact. The mere fact that the appellants did not notify the authorities of the change of ownership, under the circumstances of this case, is insufficient to raise a material issue of fact with respect to their alleged ownership of the dog on the day of the accident *(see Spratt v Sloan,*280 AD2d 465).

In light of oúr determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martinez
Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00376-WJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.
BRANDON RICHTER, and
TOR OLSON,

ena

Defendants.

AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING
CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS

IT IS STIPULATED AND ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall retain
custody of their respective exhibits from the jury trial until such time as all need for the
exhibits has terminated and the time to appeal has expired or all appellate proceedings
have been terminated, plus sixty days. a

DATED at Denver, Colorado this AW day gf December 2012.

Atte aintiff:

(Attorney for Defendant Executive Reeyclipg, Ine.
and Brandon Richter:

With SL.

Attorney for Defendant Tor Olson:
174 La. 826

#### S. BENDER IRON & SUPPLY CO. v. PELICAN WELL TOOL & SUPPLY CO. et al.

No. 31785.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 1932.

Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Charles B. Emery, of Shreveport, for ap-pellees.

ODOM, J.

This suit was brought by the “S. Bender Iron & Supply Company, owned and being operated by S. Bender of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana,” against the Pelican Well Tool *&*Supply Company et al.

Defendants excepted to the petition on the ground that it “fails to set forth a legal cause or right of action.”

This exception was overruled by the trial judge. Answer was then filed, and a trial of the case on its merits resulted in a judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.

Appellees now move to dismiss the appeal upon the identical grounds urged as a basis for the exception of no cause of action filed in the lower court, which was that plaintiff has no capacity, right, or authority in law to appear in court and litigate.

Counsel argues in brief that his exception of no cause of action should have been sustained, and that the trial judge erred in his ruling thereon. Even so, that is no ground for dismissing the appeal.

Alleged errors made by trial courts in their rulings on exceptions and matters pertaining to the merits of the case will not be reviewed by this court on motions to dismiss appeals. On tlie trial of such motions, the question whether any ruling or judgment of the lower court is correct is not an issue. Hunter v. Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen, etc., 173 La. 454, 137 So. 850, and authorities there cited.

*849In the case of Borden et al. v. Louisiana State Board of Education et al., 168 La. 1005, 123 So. 655, 67 A. L. R. 1183, it was held, to quote paragraph 2 of the syllabus. “Plaintiffs’ right to maintain action could not be disposed of on motion to dismiss their appeal from judgment refusing preliminary injunction on ground that plaintiffs’ petition did not disclose any right or cause of action.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02332-MSK-MEH

NASIR ABAGIBE;

ABDUL ADAM;

ABUKAR ADEN;

ALI ALI;

NUUR ALI;

KETEMA ALIGAZIE;

MUKTAR BUNI;

ABDI DHUUBOW;

NASIR FARAH;

MUUSE JAAMAC;

RIZGALLA KHAMIS;

ADEN NOOR;

ABDUL NUR;

AHMED ODAWAAY;

SAID OMAR;

MOHAMED A. OSMAN;

MOHAMED M. OSMAN; and

MOCKTAR SAID,

Plaintiffs,

v.

YELLOW CAB CO., d/b/a Colorado Cab Company,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60
days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
**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 annualreport of Photonic Products Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the "Report"), I, William J. Foote, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1)    | The Report  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |   |
| (2)    | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates  presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the  periods presented. |

 

Dated: March 28, 2008

 
|   |   | /s/ William  J. Foote                  |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | William J.  Foote                      |
|   |   | Chief  Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

 

This certification has been furnishedsolely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Sections 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission, or its staff, upon request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01944-CMA-BNB

RENARDO COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and Plaintiff’s

Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. # 5), it is hereby

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to pay

his or its own attorney’s fees and costs.

DATED: August 05 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01944-CMA-BNB Document 6 Filed 08/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2009 Q1 survey,

region share of national

total 2.6 8.7 25.7 23.1 7.9 5.3 4.5 8.3 5.4 8.5

Sample coverage, 2009 Q1

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 9.0 4.5 15.3 35.5 20.9 9.6 9.1 6.5 7.4 32.5

Avg. loan size, 2009 Q1 survey

(thousands of dollars) 18.3 57.1 157.4 80.4 70.3 69.5 142.5 73.4 45.2 75.1

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

(0.16) (0.19) (0.41) (0.41) (0.31) (0.50) (0.11) (0.13) (0.12) (0.32)

Q3 10.4 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 8.6

(0.01) (0.42) (0.15) (0.35) (0.33) (0.44) (0.26) (0.17) (0.07) (0.30)

Q4 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.3 6.8 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.9 7.6

(0.01) (0.16) (0.25) (0.55) (0.47) (0.41) (0.17) (0.23) (0.15) (0.22)

2008: Q1 7.3 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.4 7.8 7.2 7.8 6.3

(0.14) (0.28) (0.14) (0.63) (0.66) (0.67) (0.72) (0.21) (0.23) (0.10)

Q2 7.4 6.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.7 6.9 6.4 6.3 5.1

(0.30) (0.09) (0.26) (0.89) (0.49) (0.29) (0.40) (0.30) (0.34) (0.25)

Q3 5.7 7.2 5.7 5.4 5.5 5.0 7.2 6.1 6.5 5.0

(0.93) (0.19) (0.31) (1.25) (0.37) (0.72) (0.20) (0.24) (0.36) (0.36)

Q4 7.5 6.6 5.4 4.6 5.1 4.5 7.6 6.1 5.6 4.4

(0.07) (0.10) (0.52) (1.05) (0.67) (0.04) (0.72) (0.38) (0.61) (0.09)

2009: Q1 4.2 6.4 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.7 3.9

(0.34) (0.35) (0.35) (1.22) (0.95) (0.93) (0.64) (0.67) (0.32) (0.65)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19