alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michelle OLIVER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KALAMAZOO BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, State Board of Education et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 80-1006.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued June 19, 1980.

Decided Dec. 15, 1980.

Arthur Staton, Jr., Ford, Kriekard, Sta-ton, Allen & Decker, Kalamazoo, Mich., for defendants-appellees Kalamazoo Bd. of Ed. et al.

Michael H. Jackson, Denver, Colo., Louis R. Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of Mich., Richard P. Gartner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants-appellants State Bd. of Ed. et al.

Stuart J. Dunnings, Jr., Dunnings & Canaday, Lansing, Mich., Nathaniel R. Jones, Gen. Counsel, NAACP, Thomas Atkins, NAACP Special Contribution Fund, New York City, Duane Elston, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellees.

James A. White, Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, Lansing, Mich., for intervenors.

Samuel J. Flanagan, Jr., Brian K. Lands-berg, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., James S. Brady, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for U. S. intervenors.

Before ENGEL and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The issue raised in this appeal by appellant, Kalamazoo Board of Education, was decided this day in an appeal by the Michigan State Board of Education in No. 79-1723. An issue there and the issue here is whether the district court erred in ordering implementation of recommendations in the Green-Cohen report with respect to the Kalamazoo school system. The panel in No. 79-1723, Weick and Brown, JJ. and Peck, Senior Judge, decided that the district judge did err in so ordering the implementation of such recommendations, and the order was vacated and the case was remanded. Since this panel agrees that the order vacating and remanding the order of the district court in No. 79-1723 is correct and agrees with the reasons stated therefor, this panel adopts the opinion in No. 79-1723 insofar as it relates to the issue presented here.

The order of the district court is therefore vacated and the case is remanded.
#### Michael E. WILSON, Appellant, v. STENOTYPE INSTITUTE OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., Appellee.

No. 1D10-5506.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2011.

Michael E. Wilson, pro se, Appellant.

Alfred L. Frith of The Frith Law Group, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Rogers v. Cyrus,*941 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

KAHN, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                             U.S. Dollars
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                            2736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5491
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13678
<PP&E>                                           68325
<DEPRECIATION>                                   27667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   62754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7073
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         13868
<OTHER-SE>                                       14905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     62754
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 36337
<CGS>                                             4267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 16674
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8354
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.91




</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  as of  January  31,  2000  and  1999  and the
     Consolidated  Statement of  Operations  for the year ended January 31, 2000
     and January 31, 1999, and the periods from February 18, 1997 to January 31,
     2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  be  reference  to such  financial
     statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035039
<NAME>                        INVU, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1916
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     25,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                61,416
<PP&E>                          299,894
<DEPRECIATION>                  73,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  288,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,812,165
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        288,355
<OTHER-SE>                      (2,338,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    288,175
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                15,754
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,369,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (78,987)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,433,004)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,433,004)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.05)



</TABLE>
110216-F-JZ022-647.JPG
            MAJOR GENERAL JEFFERY D. KAHLAMajor General Jeffery D. Kahla is commander of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, with headquarters in Dallas. AAFES provides goods and services to U.S. military forces worldwide, including those on deployments and exercises, and generates money to support Army and Air Force morale, welfare and recreation programs. 

General Kahla was born in 1939, in Helena, Mont. He earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Washington in 1961 and a master of science degree from Stanford University's Graduate School of Business in 1982. The general completed Squadron Officer School in 1967, Air Command and Staff College in 1972, and the Air War College in 1980. 

He was commissioned through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program and began active duty in August 1961 at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. After completing computer programming school, General Kahla was assigned to San Bernardino Air Materiel Area, Norton Air Force Base, Calif., where he served as a programmer, systems analyst and computer operations chief. From September 1964 until September 1967 General Kahla was assigned to Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and served in numerous staff positions with the AFLC Data Center. 

In October 1967 he was assigned as advanced data processing plans officer, Military Assistance Command-Vietnam, Tan Son Nhut Air Base. In November 1968 he transferred to Wheeler Air Force Base, Hawaii, and became chief of the Advanced Data Processing Support Division, Defense Communications Agency, Pacific. 

Returning to the United States in August 1971, General Kahla attended Air Command and Staff College, and upon graduation was assigned to the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Air Force Inspection and Safety Center, Norton. While there he served as data automation inspector and plans project officer. From July 1975 to September 1981 he was assigned to the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center, Lowry Air Force Base, Colo., and held several positions, including that of chief, Foreign Military Sales Support Division, and deputy director of plans and systems. 

After graduation from Stanford University in July 1982, the general served as deputy chief, Investment Appropriation Division, Office of the Comptroller, Directorate of Budget, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., and later became director of cost and management analysis. He became vice commander of AAFES in July 1985 and assumed his present command in September 1988. 

General Kahla's military decorations and awards include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, and Air Force Commendation Medal. 

He assumed the grade of major general June 28,1989. 

(Current as of August 1989)
EXHIBIT 10.1  








Addendum No.1 to the Employment Agreement between Allied Nevada Gold Corp. 


and Scott A. Caldwell, dated January 11, 2008 (the “Agreement”), 


made this 29th day of December, 2008.


 



	
             
 	
            1.
 	
            Employee and the Company acknowledge and agree that for purposes of the definition of “good reason” in Section 4(b), the Employee’s ability to terminate his employment for “good reason” shall commence only if the Employee provides notice to the Company within ninety (90) days of the occurrence of any of the conditions set forth in Sections 4(b)(i)-(iii) and the Company does not remedy any such condition within thirty (30) days of receiving such notice. 
 




 



	
             
 	
            2.
 	
            Employee and the Company acknowledge and agree that for purposes of any payments that may become due to the Employee under Section 4(e) of the Agreement, all such payments shall be made when due pursuant to the Agreement, but in each case such payments shall be made no later than sixty (60) days following the date of the Employee’s termination of employment with the Company.
 




 



	
             
 	
            3.
 	
            This Addendum No.1 to the Agreement is made pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement which provides that the Agreement may be modified by a written document signed by a Company officer duly authorized by the Board or a member of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Employee.
 




 



	
             
 	
            4.
 	
            Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.
 




 



	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
            EMPLOYEE
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
            ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP.
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
            /s/ Scott A. Caldwell
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
            /s/ D. Bruce Sinclair
 
	
            Name: Scott A. Caldwell

 

Date: December 29, 2008
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
            By:

Its:

Date:
 	
             
 	
            D. Bruce Sinclair

Director

December 29, 2008
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-0XLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MRO Software, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned
President & Chief Executive Officer, and Executive Vice President of Finance &
Administration, CFO & Treasurer of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge
and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.                   /s/ Peter J. Rice
-----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.                       Peter J. Rice
President & Chief Executive Officer          Executive Vice President, Finance &
Date: August 13, 2004                        Administration, CFO & Treasurer
                                             Date: August 13, 2004
#### Jose Maria Leal v. H. E. Woodhouse.

(No. 1549.)

Error from Cameron County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 101. *Citation to non-resident of the state.*Leal was a non-resident of this state and sued as such. He was served with notice of the suit in Mexico, the place of his residence. The notice stated the date of the filing of plaintiff’s petition to be July 27, 1883, when the petition itself showed that it was filed July 24, 1883. Said notice was not attested by the seal of the court from whence it issued. *Held,*that the notice was not in compliance with the statute [R. S. art. 1230], and that the judgment by default rendered upon service thereof was erroneous. In cases of this character, where a judgment is sought to be maintained upon service had out of the state, and where the defendant has not answered, it must be made to appear that the notice and the service thereof are in *83strict compliance with, the requirements of the statute, not only as to matters of substance, but even as to matters of form.

(Note.— In Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex, 451, speaking of the subject of citation to a non-resident, it is said: “ These statutes are not to be construed strictly as in derogation of the common law, but liberally, and with a view to effect their objects and promote justice. The object of articles 1230 to 1233 of the Revised Statutes was to provide for an easier and less expensive method of effecting service on non-residents than by publication, and, at the same time, to make it certain that the defendant has full notice of the suit. To carry out these objects we must give the statute a liberal construction, disregard technicalities, and-supply by intendment what the law, in other cases, would presume had been done.” This decision was not before the court of appeals when Leal v. Woodhouse was decided, but the reporter does not understand the two cases to conflict, except, perhaps, as to the construction to be given to the statute, whether it should be a strict or a liberal one. Bearing upon this subject, see the following cases: Frosh v. Schlumpf, 2 Tex. 422; Chambers v. Chapman, 32 Tex. 570; Windish v. Wofford, 33 Tex. 110; Norvell v. Garthwaite, 25 Tex. 584; Wright v. Wilmot, 22 Tex. 398; Roberts v. Stocklager, 4 Tex. 307; Underhill v. Lockett, 20 Tex. 131; Graves v. Robertson, 22 Tex. 130; Tullis v. Scott, 38 Tex. 537; W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 242, 243, 812.—Reporter.)

§ 102. *Ownership of note; sufficient allegation of.*The petition alleged that the defendant, on a day named, made, executed and delivered to the plaintiff the note sued upon. *Held,*that this was a sufficient allegation that the plaintiff was the owner of the note. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 96.]
627 A.2d 1126

#### IN THE MATTER OF OPINION 668 OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.

February 11, 1993.

ORDER

Petitions for review of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 668, *Ex Parte Communication with Former Employees of Corporate Defendant,*is granted.
Exhibit
32A





Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
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, 2009 ( 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. KOMARSteve
      L. KomarChief
      Executive Officer/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBINJames
      T. McCubbinChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      April 30, 2010
Exhibit 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                         State of Incorporation                Assumed Names
------------------------------------------------------     ---------------------------    ----------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>                            <C>
Noble Component Technologies, Inc.*                                 Michigan
Monroe Engineering Products, Inc.                                   Michigan
Cass River Coatings, Inc.*                                          Michigan              Vassar Industries
Skandy Corp.                                                        Michigan
Utilase Production Process, Inc.                                    Michigan
Noble Metal Forming, Inc.                                           Michigan
Noble Metal Processing, Inc.                                        Michigan
Noble Land Holdings, Inc.                                           Michigan
Noble Canada, Inc.*                                             Ontario, Canada
Noble Canada II, Inc.*                                          Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Plastics, Inc.*                                         Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Coatings, Inc.*                                         Ontario, Canada
Noble Metal Processing-Midwest, Inc.(1)                             Michigan
Noble Canada Holdings Limited*                                Nova Scotia, Canada
Noble Canada Holdings II Limited*                             Nova Scotia, Canada
Noble Components & Systems, Inc.                                    Michigan
Noble Technologies, Inc.                                            Michigan
Noble Metal Processing Canada, Inc.                             Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Industries, Inc.*                                       Ontario, Canada
</TABLE>

----------
(1)  Formerly H & H Steel Processing, Inc.
*    Former subsidiaries of the Company which were disposed of in connection
     with the Tiercon Sale.
#### Lynn A. SCHNEBLY, Appellant, v. G4S YOUTH SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.

No. 1D12-533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2012.

Lynn A. Schnebly, Stuart, pro se, Appellant.

Larry Kranert, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Human Relations, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

THOMAS, J.

Appellant appeals an order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) in which it summarily found that Appellee (Appellant’s employer) was not a state agency, thus, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate Appellant’s claim of improper retaliation under the Florida Whistle-Blower Act (Act).1 Appellant contends the Commission erred because her employer was a covered independent contractor as defined by the Act. Because the Commission did not make any findings on this issue, we reverse and remand for a determination of whether the employer was in fact an independent contractor, as defined by the Act.

As Appellant correctly argues, the Act applies not only to state agencies, but also to independent contractors, as defined.2*See*112.3187(2), Fla. Stat. (2002) (“It is the intent of the Legislature to prevent agencies *or independent contractors*from taking retaliatory action against an employee who reports to an appropriate agency violations of law on the part of a public employer or independent contractor that create a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare.”) (emphasis added). For purposes of the Act: “ ‘Independent contractor’ ” means a person, other than an agency, engaged in any business and who enters into a contract, including a provider agreement, with an agency.

Here, Appellant alleged her employer provided services in a juvenile detention facility pursuant to a contract with the state. If true, the employer may qualify as an independent contractor subject to the Act. *See, e.g., Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc.,*645 So.2d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding “[wjhere ... an insurer enters into a payroll deduction agreement with a governmental agency, and then sells insurance policies to individual employees as policies which can be paid for through payroll deduction, the insurer is an independent contractor for purposes of the Whistle-blower’s Act.”).

As noted, the Commission’s order did not address whether Appellant’s employer was an independent contractor for purpose of the Act in determining whether it had jurisdiction to investigate her allegations of wrongful retaliation in violation of the Act. Consequently, we REVERSE the order and REMAND with instructions to the Commission to make this determination.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

BENTON, C.J., and ROWE, J., concur.

1

. The Act is codified at section 112.3187-31895, Florida Statutes (2002).

2

. The Commission did not file an answer brief in this appeal.
#### STATE ex rel. John H. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2803.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Jones, John H.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 052166; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1581.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), *1192665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
Order filed March 16, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00576-CV

____________

STEVEN HOTZE, M.D., MATT BRICE, NORMAN ADAMS AND AL 

HARTMAN, Appellants

V.

LINA HIDALGO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS HARRIS COUNTY 

JUDGE, LAURIE L. CHRISTENSEN, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS HARRIS COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL; AND THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-38804

O R D E R

Appellants’ brief was due February 25, 2021. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before March 25, 2021, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
#### Donald W. DAVIS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-4599.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 16, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 2010.

Donald W. Davis, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

KAHN, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.