alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 96-20775.

In the Matter of: Robert L. LACEY, Debtor.

ROBERT A. LACEY FAMILY TRUST, Linda Kay Lacey Trust, R. Lacey,

Trustee, Appellants,

v.

David J. ASKANASE, Trustee, Appellee.

June 16, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas.

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. Lacey, as trustee of the Robert A. Lacey Family

Trust and the Linda Kay Lacey Trust, appeals the district court's

affirmance of the bankruptcy court's judgment allowing David J.

Askanase, as trustee of Lacey's bankruptcy estate, to recover

certain assets transferred into the defendant trusts. Under FED.

R. APP. P. 4(a)(1), Lacey's notice of appeal must have been filed

within thirty days of entry of the district court's judgment. The

district court entered its judgment on July 11, 1996; the

thirtieth day following that date was Saturday, August 10, 1996.

Under FED. R. APP. P. 26(a), the deadline for filing the notice of

appeal was the following Monday, August 12, 1996. The notice of

appeal, however, is stamped as filed on August 13, 1996.

Lacey, however, argues that the notice was, in fact, timely

filed. Lacey, by sworn affidavit, avers that he personally
2

deposited the notice of appeal in the internal mailbox at the

United States Post Office in Bryan, Texas before 11:30 a.m. on

Thursday, August 8, 1996, four days before the filing deadline.

Bryan, Texas is approximately ninety-five miles from the district

court in downtown Houston. On the same day, counsel for Lacey sent

a copy of the notice of appeal to opposing counsel via registered

mail; opposing counsel received the notice the very next day.

Opposing counsel's offices are located in Bellaire, Texas, less

than nine miles from the district court. Lacey thus concludes that

the district court, like opposing counsel, must have received the

notice prior to Tuesday, August 13, 1996, and that the district

court simply failed to stamp the notice of appeal as filed at the

time it was received. Alternatively, Lacey requests a one day

extension of time for good cause shown under FED. R. APP. P. 26(b)

and Local Rule 26.2.

A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional,

First Nationwide Bank v. Summer House Joint Venture, 902 F.2d 1197,

1199 (5th Cir.1990), and we have no power to enlarge the time for

filing a notice of appeal under any circumstances. See FED. R. APP.

P. 26(b). Lacey could have requested an extension of time from the

district court for good cause shown within thirty days of the

deadline, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5), but there is nothing in the

record to indicate that he did so. Therefore, we DISMISS Lacey's

appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
BRION WILLIAMS,

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. 1D15-5752

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 7, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

Melissa J. Ford of the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel 

Region One, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH ALLEN MAYS, DC #C12418, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-2619 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 1, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jean-Jacques A. Darius, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00254

- CR

Clinton Ray Sanders

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From the 355th District Court

of Ho od County (CR12349 )

January 30, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

Dissent by Justice Gardner

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Terrie Livingston

Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### Dirk JOHNSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CA CR 97-1444

959 S.W.2d 54

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 26, 1998

*Norman M. Smith,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Dirk Johnson, by his attorney, Norman M. Smith, has filed a motion for belated appeal. His attorney admits that he failed to file the notice of appeal on time.

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See Terry v. State,*272 Ark. 243, 613 S.W.2d 90 (1981); *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*295 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

A copy of this per curiam will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265*Ark. 964.
Argued and submitted February 1,

remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 28, 2008

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*DAMIEN JAY KARP, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C050534CR; A130751

185 P3d 553

Daniel J. Casey argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Joanna Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*300PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of a number of sex crimes committed against a 10-year-old girl. On appeal, he makes two assignments of error. First, he asserts, the trial court erred in admitting defendant’s out-of-court statements about his having *“a*thing for little girls.” Second, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing a partial consecutive sentence in the absence of jury findings to support it. Because it is unpreserved, we reject his first claim of error. ORAP 5.45(1). However, we agree that the trial court erred in sentencing and, accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

In *State v. Ice,*343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), *cert granted,*_US_, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008), the Oregon Supreme Court held that, to comply with the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in *Blakely v. Washington,*542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), a trial court cannot impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5) unless the facts required by that statute are submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not occur in this case. The state argues that *Ice*does not require resentencing in this case because consecutive sentences are authorized “as a matter of law” under ORS 137.123(5)(a) for convictions of “equal seriousness.” We rejected that argument in *State v. Loftin,*218 Or App 160, 178 P3d 312 (2008), decided after oral argument in this case. *See also State v. Mills,*219 Or App 225, 230, 182 P3d 889 (2008) (same).

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Median tenure of wage and salary workers with current employer, 
 in years, selected industries, January 2008

Industry			       Years
Manufacturing				5.9
Transportation and utilities		5.1
Information				4.7
Wholesale and retail trade		3.2
Professional and business services	3.1
Leisure and hospitality			2.1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
NUKO Information Systems, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-19205) of our report,
which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern, dated March 21, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of NUKO
Information Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 1996, and for the year then ended
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                        /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
                                        -------------------------------
                                            Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


San Jose, California
April 2, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40171-40172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17927]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Site visit review of a Science and 
Technology Center on Real-Time Functional Imaging (STROBE)--Division 
of Materials Research (DMR) #1203

[[Page 40172]]

    Date and Time: September 6, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. September 
7, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
    Place: University of Colorado, Boulder--Auditorium C120, 
Sustainability, Energy and Environment Complex (SEEC), CU Boulder 
East Campus, Boulder, Colorado 80303.
    Type of Meeting: Part Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Charles Ying, Program Director, Division of 
Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-8428.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning progress of the Science and Technology Center.

Agenda

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

8:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Open--Review of STROBE
10:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session

Thursday, September 7, 2017

8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session
    Reason for Late Notice: Due to unforeseen scheduling 
complications and the necessity to proceed with the review.
    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during 
closed portions of the site review will include information of a 
proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; 
and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 
U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-17927 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FocusEnhancements, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gary L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)      The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/Gary L. Williams     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Gary L. Williams        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 12, 2005    |

 

*The foregoing certification is beingfurnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  A signed original of this written statementor other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to FocusEnhancements, Inc. and such statement will be retained by FocusEnhancements, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.*

 

----
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 768 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories for speech generating devices 

and to remove the rental cap for durable medical equipment under 

the Medicare Program with respect to speech generating devices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2015 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KING, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

KIRK, Ms. COLLINS, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

Medicare beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories 

for speech generating devices and to remove the rental 

cap for durable medical equipment under the Medicare 

Program with respect to speech generating devices. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Steve Gleason Act of 

5 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 768 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROVIDING MEDICARE BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO 

2 EYE TRACKING ACCESSORIES FOR SPEECH 

3 GENERATING DEVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(n) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘and eye tracking and gaze interaction accessories for 

7 speech generating devices furnished to individuals with a 

8 demonstrated medical need for such accessories’’ after 

9 ‘‘appropriate organizations)’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to devices furnished 

12 on or after January 1, 2016. 

13 SEC. 3. REMOVING THE RENTAL CAP FOR DURABLE MED14 ICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER MEDICARE WITH 

15 RESPECT TO SPEECH GENERATING DEVICES. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(a)(2)(A) of the So17 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(2)(A)) is amend18 ed— 

19 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

20 (2) in clause (iii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

21 and 

22 (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following 

23 new clause: 

24 ‘‘(iv) which serves as a speech gener25 ating device or which is an accessory that 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 768 IS

1 is needed for the individual to effectively 

2 utilize such a device,’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply with respect to devices furnished 

5 on or after July 1, 2015. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

               In connection with the Annual Report of Dialysis Corporation of
America (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein
specified (the "Report"), the undersigned, Stephen W. Everett, Chief Executive
Officer and President of the Company, and Daniel R. Ouzts, Vice President of
Finance and Treasurer of the Company, each certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of our knowledge:

         (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 financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                  /s/ Stephen W. Everett
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                  STEPHEN W. EVERETT, Chief Executive Officer
                                  and President

                                  /s/ Daniel R. Ouzts
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                  DANIEL R. OUZTS, Vice President of Finance and
                                  Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

Dated: March 25, 2004
<PAGE>
         Exhibit 11.0 - Computation of Earnings per Share

         The following represents the computation of earnings per share
         reflecting the assumption that the granted shares under the option and
         warrants plan which would be dilutive will be exercised.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended                   Six Months Ended
                                                                   June 30,                            June 30,
                                                         -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                            2003               2002             2003              2002
                                                         -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                                      <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net Earnings-basic and diluted                           $   217,333       $   771,188       $   485,313       $ 1,558,509
                                                         ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                12,322,908        12,265,250        12,315,655        12,265,250
Common share equivalents relating to stock
options, and warrant                                         144,913           221,238           120,599           174,134
                                                         -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
Adjusted common and common equivalent
shares for diluted computation                            12,467,821        12,486,488        12,436,254        12,439,384
                                                         ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
Net Earnings Per Share:
    Basic                                                $      0.02       $      0.06       $      0.04       $      0.13
    Diluted                                              $      0.02       $      0.06       $      0.04       $      0.13
                                                         ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Anti-dilutive options and warrants not included in
the diluted earnings per share computation                   936,431         1,115,697         1,186,252         1,189,882
</TABLE>






See notes to consolidated financial statements.
Meeting, convention, and event planners

Coordinate activities of staff, convention personnel, or clients to make 

arrangements for group meetings, events, or conventions.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, 

interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, verbal interactions were required constantly (every few minutes) 

for 14.6 percent of meeting, convention, and event planners, and were 

required not constantly, but more than once per hour for 71.1 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of meeting, convention, and event planners with cognitive and 

mental requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 95.3 4.7

Interaction with general public >99.5 <0.5

Working around crowds 32.7 67.3

Telework 33.7 66.3

Work review: Supervising others 29.1 70.9

Work review: Presence of supervisor 59.9 40.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and experience requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, 

credentials necessary, on-thejob training, and prior work 

experience necessary for 

average performance in jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for 44.0 percent of 

meeting, convention, and 

event planners. Prior work 

experience was required for 

84.3 percent and on-the-job 

training was required for 70.7 

percent.

A high school diploma was 

required for 34.5 percent of 

meeting, convention, and 

event planners and a 

bachelor's degree was required for 56.9 percent.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete 

hazards or difficulties that are in the 

vicinity of where jobs’ critical tasks are 

performed.

In 2023, greater than 99.5 percent of 

meeting, convention, and event 

planners were not exposed to extreme 

cold, and greater than 99.5 percent 

were not exposed to extreme heat. 

Wetness was not present for 99.3 

percent, greater than 99.5 percent were 

not exposed to heavy vibrations, and 

48.9 percent were not exposed to the 

outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities required to 

perform tasks in jobs. The presence and, in 

some cases, duration of these activities are 

published.

In 2023, keyboarding was required for greater 

than 99.5 percent of meeting, convention, and 

event planners and was not required for less 

than 0.5 percent.

Performing work in low postures was required 

for 37.5 percent of meeting, convention, and 

event planners and was not required for 62.5 

percent.

The choice to sit or stand when performing 

critical tasks was available to 64.0 percent of 

meeting, convention, and event planners. On average, workers spent 68.1 percent of the workday sitting and 31.9 

percent of the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of meeting, convention, and event planners with physical demands, 

2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 64.0 36.0

Driving 39.2 60.8

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 17.2 82.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
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 on Form 10-Q of Cynosure, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy W. Baker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Timothy W. Baker                                        
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Timothy W. Baker                                               
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer