alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VENTURE CONSTRUCTION GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC. a/a/o

HOWARD FEARN and FELICE SAMUEL
, Appellant,

v.

FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 256

[ May 27, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; William L. Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18000325CAAXMX

.

Nicholas A. Shannin and Carol B. Shannin of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Lauren J. Smith of Luks, S antaniello, Petrillo & Cohen, Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., and R OBINSON

, M ICHAEL A ., Associate Judge,

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,993]

                    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 23, 2008, applicable to workers of TTM Technologies, Redmond, Washington. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 25, 2009 (74 FR 12901).                

                    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of printed circuit boards.                          ( print page 66796)    

New information shows that a worker leased from Orbotech, Inc. was employed on-site at TTM Technologies, Redmond, Washington. The Department has determined that this worker was sufficiently under the control of TTM Technologies, Redmond, Washington to be considered a leased worker.

Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include a worker leased from Orbotech, Inc., working on-site at the Redmond, Washington location of the TTM Technologies.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,993 is hereby issued as follows:

“All workers TTM Technologies, including on-site leased workers from Kelly Services and Aerotek, and including an on-site leased worker from Orbotech, Inc., Redmond, Washington, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 23, 2008 through March 11, 2011, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”

Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day of October 2010.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010-27380 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

of
our report dated February 3, 2006, except for Note 20(a)(i) as to which the date is February 9, 2006, and Note 23 as to which the date is March 15, 2006, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Magna Entertainment Corp. and of our report dated February 3, 2006 with respect to Magna Entertainment Corp. management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Magna Entertainment Corp., included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

|March 16, 2006  |  |  |  | /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|--------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|Toronto, Canada |  |  |  | Ernst & Young LLP   

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit
32.1




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 OCTuS, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David S.
Pere, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
OCTuS, Inc., and will be retained by OCTuS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/
      David S. PereDavid
      S. Pere
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  August
      7, 2008
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00658-CV

BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.,

Appellant

v.

Enedina S. LOPEZ and The Estate of Rodolfo Lopez, Jr.,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-08-00245CVF

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appellant’s motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED February 5, 2020.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
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 American Consolidated
Management Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Scott Moeller, the acting 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Scott Moeller
-------------------------------
Acting Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2002
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.7
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
L3HARRIS RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN


WHEREAS, L3Harris Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“L3Harris”), heretofore has adopted and maintains the L3Harris Retirement Savings Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2020 (the "Plan");


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.1 of the Plan, the Employee Benefits Committee (the “Committee”) of L3Harris has the authority to amend the Plan;


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.3 of the Plan, the Committee has delegated certain of such amendment authority to L3Harris’s head of global benefits (currently, the Senior Director, Global Benefits) (the “Head of Global Benefits”); and


WHEREAS, the Head of Global Benefits desires to amend the Plan to provide that a participant’s account shall be fully vested and nonforfeitable upon the participant’s attainment of age 55 during employment with L3Harris and its subsidiaries.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective March 1, 2020, the Plan hereby is amended as follows:


		
	1.
	Article 8 hereby is amended to add the following new Section 8.8 thereto:




Section 8.8.  Accelerated Vesting during Employment.  A Participant’s entire Account shall become fully vested and nonforfeitable on the date that the Participant attains age 55 if the Participant is employed by an Employer or Affiliate on such date.  In addition, a Participant who commences employment with the Employers and Affiliates after attainment of age 55 shall be fully vested in his or her entire Account.


2.    Schedule A hereby is amended to delete in its entirety the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 11(d) thereof.


APPROVED by the HEAD OF GLOBAL BENEFITS on this 28th day of February, 2020.


/s/ Allison Oncel         
Allison Oncel
Senior Director, Global Benefits
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C U IT MAY 24 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15696 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5
- 2 0 3 0 4
- C V- P AS J A C O B A L K O V , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s C I T Y O F M I A M I B E A C H , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 24 , 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: U pon de no vo r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d in th is c a s e , w e a f f ir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d is m is s a l o f

J a c o b A lk o v 's c o m p la in t th a t D e fe n d a n t's r e je c tio n o f

c e r ta in
a ppl i c a t i ons s ubm i tt e d unde rthe C i ty ' s N onpr of i tV e ndi ng O r di na nc e ( " the O rdi nance" ), M i am i B ea ch C i ty C od e § 86 -143 , vi ol at ed the fe dera l E qu alAs thedis tric t c ourt c or re c tly no te d, " No whereha s Plaintif f alle g e d th at heis a 1 nonprofit org anization within the meaning of the Ordinance. Plaintiff doe s not assert that he ha s an intere st in distributing books, literature, and messag e-be aringmerchandise in furtherance of promoting his nonprof

it org anization or that he intended personally to make use of

the denied permits." 2 P r ot e c t i on C l a us e . T he c our tpr ope r l y found tha tA l kov l a c ks s t a ndi ng t o br i ng su i tu n d er th e O rd i n an ce, w h i ch creat es ri g h t s i n n o n -p ro fi to rg an i zat i o n s o n l y. A l ko v, a s el f- desc ri bed v endo r a nd i nd ependentcontra ct or, cl earl y does notfi tthat desc ri pt i on , and h e off

er s no rea son w hy hi s s ho ul d b e one of tho se "e xcept i on al 1
c a s e s w he r e pl a i nt i f

fs a r e pe r m i tt e d t o r a i s e the r i ght s of othe r s . " W ol f

f v. C a s h 4 T i l e s , 351 F . 3d 1348, 1357 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . O n a ppe a l , A l kov a tt e m pt s t o e s c a pe thi s c onc l us i on by a r gui ng tha tthe O r di na nc e a ppl i e s t o c om m e r c i a l ve ndor s l i ke h im s e lf a s w e ll a s to n o n - p r o f

it o r g a n iz a tio n s . T h is r e a d in g m a n ife s tly c o n tr a d ic ts th e O r d in a n c e ’s u n a m b ig u o u s la n g u a g e a n d e x p r e s s in te n t. See M i am i B ea ch C i ty C od e § 86 -141 and accom panyi ng se cti on on "A pp l i cabi l i ty of [ the] A rti cl e. ” F in a lly , w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t A lk o v s till w o u ld la c ks ta n d in g e v e n if th e o rd i n an ce ap p l i ed t o co m m erci al v en d o rs, b ecau se th e o n l y ap p l i cat i o n s w h o se r e je c tio n h e c o n te s ts w e r e s u b m itte d o n b e h a lf o f n o n - p r o f

it o r g a n iz a tio n s . AF F I RME D.
# Todd May

Former Director at Marshall Space Flight Center (2016–2018)

Todd May was director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center from February 2016 to July 2018. Prior to becoming center director, May served as deputy director of Marshall from August 2015 to November 2015 and served as acting director from November 2015 until being appointed director. Prior to that, he was manager of the Space Launch System program since August 2011. SLS, now under development, is the most powerful rocket ever built, able to carry astronauts in NASA’s Orion spacecraft on deep space missions, including to an asteroid and ultimately to Mars. The program is managed at Marshall, and May led SLS through a series of milestones, including engine tests and an in-depth critical design review.

From June 2008 until becoming SLS program manager, May was Marshall’s associate director, technical, where he was responsible for ensuring that all center activities, processes and policies are consistent with the nation’s Space Exploration Policy. He was a deputy associate administrator in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington from 2007-08, responsible for a $5 billion portfolio of robotic programs and projects, including more than 100 spacecraft at various stages of formulation, development and operations.

In 2006 at Marshall, he was associate program manager for the Constellation Program. At the same time, he also served as deputy director of Marshall’s Science and Mission Systems Office, helping lead the organization responsible for all Marshall non-launch vehicle programs and projects. In 2004, he was manager of the Discovery and New Frontiers Programs, which were created to explore the solar system with frequent unmanned spacecraft missions.

May managed the successful integration, launch and commissioning of the International Space Station’s Quest airlock in 1998. He also joined the team that launched the Gravity Probe B mission to test Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

In 1994, he was deputy program manager of the Russian Integration Office for the International Space Station Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. May’s NASA career began at Marshall in 1991 as an engineer in the Materials and Processes Laboratory.

A native of Fairhope, Alabama, May earned a bachelor’s degree in materials engineering from Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama, in 1990. His many awards include NASA’s Exceptional Achievement Medal, the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive, NASA’s Outstanding Leadership Medal and the John W. Hager Award for professionalism in materials engineering. He has been named a Distinguished Engineer by his alma mater, Auburn University. In 2014, he received Aviation Week’s Program Excellence Award, as well as the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement Foundation’s Stellar Award in recognition of the SLS team’s many accomplishments. May and his wife, Kelly, have four children and live in Huntsville.
# Sitemap

## May 13, 2009

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2009
- 05
- May 13, 2009

            - Space Telescope Operations Control Center – Flight Day 4
            - Live from Goddard
            - Launch Day
            - Mike Massimino Becomes the First to ‘Tweet’ From Space
Exhibit 12

MEC
Earnings to Fixed Charges Ratio

|                                                                                  |  | Year ended December 31, |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -
|
|Part I  Earnings                                                                 |  |                         |  
|Pretax loss from continuing operations                                            |  | (92,307                 | )
|Add:                                                                              |  |                         |  
|Fixed Charges                                                                     |  |                         |  
|Interest expense  not income                                                     |  | 65,828                  |  
|Amortization of debt issue costs and discount or premium relating to indebtedness |  | 8,080                   |  
|Interest portion of rental expense                                                |  | 703                     |  
|Preferred stock dividends                                                         |  |                        |  
|Fixed Charges reduced by:                                                         |  |                         |  
|Interest capitalized during the period                                            |  | 2,633                   |  
|Preferred stock dividends                                                         |  |                        |  
|Amortization related to capitalized interest                                      |  | 413                     |  
|                                                                                  |  |                         |  
|                                                                                  |  | (20,742                 | )
|                                                                                  |  |                         |  
|Part II  Fixed Charges                                                           |  |                         |  
|Interest Expense  not income                                                     |  | 65,828                  |  
|Amortization of debt issue costs and discount or premium relating to indebtedness |  | 8,080                   |  
|Interest portion of rental expense                                                |  | 703                     |  
|Preferred stock dividends                                                         |  |                        |  
|                                                                                  |  |                         |  
|                                                                                  |  | 74,611                  |  
|                                                                                  |  |                         |  
|Fixed charge coverage                                                             |  | (0.28                   | )

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

CHRISTIAN ALLEN BELK, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0729 PRPC 

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400CR200900319 

The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma

By Charles V.S. Platt 

Counsel for Respondent 

Christian Allen Belk, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 3-5-2019
STATE v. BELK

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge 

Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Christian Belk seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Belk’s second petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden 

to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerd William PINEDA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50394.

D.C. No. CR-99-01274-RSWL-21.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Ray Jurado, AUSA, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*843Kenneth M. Stern, Esq., Woodland Hills, CA, Gerd William Pineda, pro se, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gerd William Pineda appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 168-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Pineda’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no arguable issues for review on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and, in light of the valid appeal waiver, the appeal is DISMISSED.1*See United States v. Nunez,*223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir.2000).

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Appellant’s pro se motion for reconsideration of the court's April 29, 2003 order denying new counsel is denied.
**EXHIBIT 10.4**             **Sirna Therapeutics, Inc.****Notice of Grant of Stock Options** ID:                                     **And Option Agreement** 185 Berry Street, Suite 6504  San Francisco, CA 94107               **[NAME]** **Option Number:**    **[ADDRESS]** **Plan:** ** 2005**  **[ADDRESS]** **ID:**                   Effective                                         , you have been granted a(n) [Incentive Stock Option][Nonqualified StockOption] to buy                     shares of Sirna Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) stock at $                     pershare.The total option price of the shares granted is $                                        .Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown.             Shares Vest Type Full Vest Expiration                         By your signature and the Company’s signature below, you and the Company agree that these optionsare granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company’s Stock Option Plan asamended and the Option Agreement, all of which are attached and made a part of this document.          Sirna Therapeutics, Inc. Date      [NAME] Date