alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David H. TEDDER, Appellant, v. Sandy MAGID, etc., Appellee.

No. 5D09-3276.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 21, 2011.

David P. Johnson, of Law Office of David P. Johnson, LLC, Fern Park, for Appellant.

Joey E. Schlosberg, of Adams & Reese LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal comes to us based on a final summary judgment in favor of the appel-lee, Sandy Magid, as successor Trustee of the Alta Trust dated June 80, 1999, and against the appellant, David H. Tedder. After a *de novo*review, we conclude that there was no genuine issue of material fact presented to the trial court, and that the appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. *See*Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: May 10Published May 10, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – On this look around the Air Force we go to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where the Air Force Research Laboratory is testing transcranial direct-current stimulation, and also at Wright-Patterson AFB, the HH-60W combat rescue helicopter is in development. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- CRH Program Office holds successful preliminary design reviewATAF 



Wright-Patterson AFB 



Ohio 



Air Force Research Laboratory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINA M. CHAPPELL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-36012

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05302-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Christina M. Chappell appeals the district court’s decision affirming

the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. We affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not err at steps four and five, as she

gave specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence for giving greater

FILED

DEC 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
weight to non-examining sources than to treating and examining sources; specific,

clear, and convincing reasons for finding Chappell’s testimony not credible; and

germane reasons for rejecting Chappell’s mother’s lay testimony. See Molina v.

Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111-14 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Although the ALJ erred at step three by relying on Dr. Moore’s testimony to

find that Chappell did not meet Listing 12.04’s paragraph C criteria when Dr. Moore

did not specifically testify about the paragraph C criteria, the error was harmless in

light of the other evidence in the record. See id. at 1115. 

AFFIRMED.

2
#### ST. TAMMANY PARISH v. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LACOMBE, a Non-Profit Corporation, Paul J. Leary, Sr., J.C. Hymel and IESI LA Corporation.

No. 2011-CA-2682.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 2011.

In re IESI LA Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2011-11620.

Granted. The case is remanded to the district court, which is instructed to grant relators’ motions for suspensive appeal pursuant to La.Code Civ. P.art. 2123.
#### STATE ex rel. Cedrick WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0747.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Washington, Cedrick; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 00-429; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-948.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP






























<PAGE>






                                   EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-30589 and  Registration  Statement No.  333-59781of  FirstSpartan  Financial
Corp.  on Forms S-8 and  Registration  Statement No.  333-70393 of  FirstSpartan
Financial Corp. on Form S-3D of our report dated July 16, 1999, appearing in the
Annual Report of  FirstSpartan  Financial Corp. for the year ended June 30, 1999
incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.












/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Greenville, South Carolina
September 23, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF VERSATA, INC.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

REGARDING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2004



Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Alan Baratz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Versata, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
do hereby certify that:



1. The Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/S/    ALAN
BARATZAlan Baratz President, Chief Executive Officer and Director




Date: January 28, 2005
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lucien Jamar TRAMMELL.

No. 2012-KO-0053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Trammell, Lucien Jamar; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 265761; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,725-KA.

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131789 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131789 COA: 267056 St. Clair CC: 87-000121-FH DEBRA LYNN KING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 22, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1120 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.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 32A

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C,
§ 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
WidePoint Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008
( the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ STEVE L. KOMAR Steve L. KomarChief
Executive Officer

/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBIN James T.
McCubbinChief Financial Officer

Date: April 30, 2009
#### PERFORMANCE ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C. v. PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE, INC., GOM Fabricators, L.L.C, Michael A. Fesi, Sr., Michael A. Fesi, Jr., Barrett Dazee, Steven Fonseca and Harvey Pertuit, Jr.

No. 2010-CC-2418.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Fesi Jr., Michael A.; Fesi Sr., Michael A.; GOM Fabricators, L.L.C; Pipeline Construction and Maintenance, Inc. et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 156,272; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CW 0615, 2010 CW 1089.

Denied.
#### Ward Dewey & Co. v. J. K. P. Campbell.

(No. 81, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 15.)

Appeal from Walter County.

January 29, 1877.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 648. *Motion for neiv trial in justice’s court a prerequisite to appeal to county court.*An appeal to the county court *from*a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace does not lie without a motion for new trial having been first made and overruled in justice’s court [Acts 15th Leg. (June 15, 1876) page 16]; and where the county court dismissed an appeal upon motion based on this ground, the appeal here is

Affirmed.

Note.— Under the law now in force it is not requisite to the appeal that a motion for new trial should have been made and overruled in justice’s court.
#### T. O. Brown v. J. S. Spharr.

(No. 6781.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

H. I. Phillips, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 132. *Certiorari; motion to dismiss must be made at return term.*Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in justice’s court, and appellant removed the cause by *certiorari*to the county court. At the return term of the *certiorari,*appellee moved to dismiss the same, wrhich motion the court dismissed. At the next term of said court appellee renewed his motion to dis*193miss, and appellant objected to said motion being entertained, because not filed and presented at the return term. The court, however, entertained and sustained the motion to dismiss, and from the judgment dismissing the *certiorari*this appeal is prosecuted. The record does not disclose the reason for the dismissal of appellee’s first motion to dismiss, which was filed at the return term; nor does it show whether said motion was dismissed at the instance of either party to the suit, or of the court’s own motion. In the judgment dismissing said motion it is stated that the dismissal is “without prejudice.” What is meant by the statement, and why the motion was dismissed, we are unable to conjecture, and the record does not enlighten us. As the matter presents itself to us, appellant’s *certiorari*has been dismissed upon motion of appellee made too late ■ — ■ made after the return term of the *certiorari;*and, such being the case, we must hold that the court erred in entertaining said motion and in dismissing the *certiorari.*[8 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 196, 265.] Said judgment dismissing the *certiorari*is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for trial *de novo*in the county court.

June *7,*1890.

Reversed and remanded.
EX-10.6






Exhibit 10.6




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THOMAS A. NARDI

AND

NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is hereby entered into by and
between Thomas A. Nardi (“Employee”) and Navigant Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”), effective
January 1, 2009:



     WHEREAS, Employee and the Company are parties to the Employment Agreement dated as of November
10, 2008 between Employee and the Company (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement to provide for interest on any payments
subject to a six month delay as a result of the rules under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.



     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the parties agree that the Agreement hereby is amended,
effective as of January 1, 2009, as follows:




1. The last sentence of Section 11(b)(i) hereby is amended to add the following
phrase immediately following the phrase “shall instead be paid” appearing therein:
“, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum,”.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Julie M. Howard

	 	 	 	Date: December 19, 2008
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Julie M. Howard
	 	 	 	 
	President, Navigant Consulting, Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Thomas A. Nardi

	 	 	 	Date: December 19, 2008
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Thomas A. Nardi
Exhibit 23.1



                   CONSENT OF LARRY E. NUNN & ASSOCIATES, LLC

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (registration number 333-53863), and in the related
Prospectus, of Unified Financial Services, Inc. of our report dated January 31,
2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and
2000, appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


/s/ Larry E. Nunn & Associates, L.L.C.
Columbus, Indiana
April 11, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-QSB FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         583,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               674,092
<PP&E>                                          29,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 703,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     697,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   703,325
<SALES>                                          4,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,344
<CGS>                                            1,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               169,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (150,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (150,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (150,636)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.006)
        

</TABLE>
#### Thelma AISOLA, et al. v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.

No. 2012-CC-0566.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 115-137; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1700.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.
Exhibit
3.3




CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT OF




AMENDED
AND RESTATED




CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION OF




BROADVISION,
INC.




BroadVision,
Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does
hereby certify:




First:  The
name of the Corporation is BroadVision, Inc.




Second:  The
date on which the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was originally
filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware is May 13,
1993.




Third:  The
Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance with the provisions
of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, adopted resolutions amending its Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation as follows:




The first
paragraph of Article IV shall be amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:




“IV.




A.           This
corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated,
respectively, “Common Stock” and “Preferred Stock.”  The total number
of shares of all classes of stock which the corporation has the authority to
issue is Twelve Million Two Hundred Thousand (12,200,000) shares, consisting of
two classes:  Eleven Million Two Hundred Thousand (11,200,000) shares
of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, and One Million (1,000,000) shares
of Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value per share.  Effective at 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time on October 24, 2008, each twenty-five (25) shares of the
Corporation’s outstanding Common Stock issued and outstanding shall,
automatically and without any action on the part of the respective holders
thereof, be combined and converted into one (1) share of the Corporation’s
Common Stock.  No fractional shares shall be issued and, in lieu
thereof, any holder of less than one share of Common Stock is entitled to
receive cash for such holder’s fractional share based upon the closing sales
price of the Corporation’s stock as reported on the OTC Bulletin Board on
October 24, 2008.”




Fourth:  Thereafter
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors, this Certificate of
Amendment was submitted for approval to stockholders of the Corporation holding
a sufficient number of shares to approve, and was duly adopted in accordance
with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.







In Witness
Whereof, BroadVision, Inc. has caused this Certificate of Amendment of
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by its President
and Chief Executive Officer this 16th day of October, 2008.




BroadVision,
Inc.









By: /s/Pehong
Chen


Pehong
Chen,


President
and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
1996 ANNUAL  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF CORECOMM  INCORPORATED.  THE  SCHEDULE IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             2,307,000
<SECURITIES>                                       5,917,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     23,801,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (3,767,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        2,912,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3,022,000
<PP&E>                                           135,909,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (37,964,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   300,722,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             23,114,000
<BONDS>                                          115,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             134,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       162,474,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     300,722,000
<SALES>                                           13,979,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 133,818,000
<CGS>                                             17,962,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     33,176,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  63,223,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 8,181,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   10,466,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       5,352,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                5,114,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       5,114,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .39<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .36<F1>

<FN>
<F1>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
    STANDARDS NO.128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE"
</FN>

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.11

          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 on Form 10-K of Spectrum Organic Products,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
B. Fowles, 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, as amended; and

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



                                            /s/  Robert B. Fowles
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Robert B. Fowles
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 March 4, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  PERMISSION FOR CERTAIN COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TO SIT DURING 5-
                              MINUTE RULE

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the 
House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute 
rule: Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on 
Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on the 
Judiciary; Committee on National Security; and Committee on Science.
  It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that 
there is no objection to these requests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman 
is correct. The Democrat leadership has been consulted and agrees with 
all of these requests.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```