alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18915]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of 
the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, 
as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign 
licensing by the Department of the Navy.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed 
to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 
Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001, Email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c487acb6adb7b0abb4aca1b6ea89abaab7a1bd84aaa5b2bdeaa9ada8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="501338223923243f203835227e1d3f3e233529103e3126297e3d393c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following patents are available for 
licensing: Patent No. 9,685,231 (Navy Case No. 103033): IRREPRODUCIBLE 
AND RE-EMERGENT UNIQUE STRUCTURE OR PATTERN IDENTIFIER MANUFACTURING 
AND DETECTION METHOD, SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS//Patent No. 9,684,025 (Navy 
Case No. 103032): DUT CONTINUITY TEST WITH ONLY DIGITAL IO STRUCTURES 
APPARATUS AND METHODS ASSOCIATED THEREOF//Patent No. 9,683,514 (Navy 
Case No. 102781): HIGH EFFICIENCY COMBUSTOR AND CLOSED-CYCLE HEAT 
ENGINE INTERFACE//Patent No. 9,669,539 (Navy Case No. 103113): MAGNETIC 
DRILL SYSTEM//and Patent No. 9,680,561 (Navy Case No. 200235): 
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND POSITION INFORMATION FOR SATELLITE 
COMMUNICATION TERMINALS.

    Authority:  35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: August 30, 2017.
A.M. Nichols,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-18915 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

#### C. Ray Davenport, Commissioner of Labor and Industry v. Thor, Inc.

July 3, 2003

Case No. CH-16641

By Judge Robert M. d. Turk

On June 26, 2003, the defendant’s special plea and motion to dismiss was argued before the court. Each party has had the opportunity to present a memorandum of law setting forth their respective position. Based upon the arguments and the memoranda, the court will deny the defendant’s special plea and motion to dismiss at this time.

The defendant’s pleas are based upon the fact that thirty-three months passed between the time the violations occurred and when the bill of complaint was filed for the enforcement of those violations, pursuant to Va. Code § 40.1-49.4(E). The defendant claims that it has been inherently prejudiced simply from the delay of thirty-three months in filing the bill of complaint.

Both parties have cited the case of *Barr v. S. W. Rodgers Co.,*33 Va. App. 273 (2000), in their respective arguments. *Barr*dealt with a fifteen-month delay in filing the bill of complaint. In *Barr,*the court stated that there was no inherent prejudice in a delay of fifteen months in filing the bill of complaint. There was some language in *Barr*that discussed the statute of limitations and the fact that this fifteen months was well within the statute of limitations for the filing of any civil action. The defendant feels that the language in that *?opinion should give this court some guidance in establishing that this 33-month delay has inherently prejudiced them.

The court in *Barr,*however, discusses Code § 40.1 -49.4 indicating that it is a remedial statute and that it should be “construed liberally so as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, as the legislature intended.” The court went further in quoting *Board of Supervisors v. Norfolk & W. Ry.,*119 Va. 763 (1916), stating “It is longstanding public policy that state actors cannot waive the right to enforce public health and safety laws.”

The court does not believe that a 3 3-month delay under these circumstances, especially when the defendant is well aware of the violations and citations that have been issued, would constitute any inherent prejudice to them. I will reserve, however, the right for the defendant to argue any actual prejudice that may have resulted from this delay. It is my understanding that discovery was going to be performed prior to any decision as to whether the defendant has suffered any actual prejudice.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135210 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: 135210 

 COA: 278054 

Oakland CC: 1999-166151-FC 

RODERICK DEWAYNE LEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0211 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 OrthoLogic Corp. (the Company
) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of,
Thomas R. Trotter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sherry A.
Sturman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of his or her respective 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: May 10, 2004 /s/ Thomas R. TrotterThomas R. TrotterPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 /s/ Sherry A. SturmanSherry A. SturmanChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and
will be retained by OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. AND
SUBIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,315
<INVENTORY>                                     16,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,765
<PP&E>                                          64,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,619
<BONDS>                                        144,185
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     134,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334,761
<SALES>                                        101,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,080
<CGS>                                           76,028
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    170
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 95
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        95
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness Corporation;2
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
   /s/ Wesley W. WinnekinsWesley W. WinnekinsChief Financial
Officer November 19, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6916

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAVERN JUNIOR JACOBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, 

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00277-RLV-DCK-1; 3:13-cv-00263-RLV)

Submitted: December 20, 2013 Decided: January 8, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lavern Junior Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lavern Junior Jacobs seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jacobs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### HENRY *K.*RUTAN v. JOHN H. HINCHMAN AND HENRY HOPPER.

An agreement to sell and exchange a horse and money for money and a piece of land, is within the statute of frauds, and an action for damages for refusal to convey the land cannot be sustained on a verbal agreement.

On *certiorari*to the Common Pleas of Passaic county on appeal.

For the plaintiff in *certiorari, S. Tuttle.*

For the defendant in *certiorari, J. Hopper.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Elmer, J.

The state of demand claims one hundred dollars, in an action of trespass on the case, for that plaintiffs agreed with defendant to sell and exchange with him a horse, of the value of two hundred dollars, for one hundred dollars in cash and a certain lot of land, to be transferred to them, and thereupon delivered to him the horse, and received the one hundred dollars; but the defendant refused, and neglected to convey to plaintiffs the said lot of land. A judgment having been obtained by the plaintiffs for the hundred dollars, this *certiorari*is now brought to reverse the same.

*256Upon the trial, the only evidence of the alleged contract was verbal, it not being pretended that there was any writing. It was therefore objected then, as it is insisted now, that the ■case comes within that clause of the statute of frauds, which forbids an action being brought upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, unless such agreement, or some memorandum thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, &c.

In my opinion this objection is well taken, and the case comes within the decision in *Smith*v. *Smith,*4 *Dutcher*208. In that case there was a contract to transfer a tract of land, in consideration of the plaintiffs erectings building on it. The court held that no action could be brought on the contract, because it was not in writing. In that case, however, the action was not for the value of the land, but for the expense ■of erecting the buildings; and the court held him entitled to recover, upon the principle, that when a party to an agreement, void by the statute of frauds, fails to execute it, the price advanced on the value of the article delivered, in part performance of the contract, may be recovered back.

This principle might, perhaps, have entitled the plaintiffs :to have recovered the value of the horse, over and above the ■one hundred dollars paid for him, had the action been so brought. But waiving the objection, that such an action in .a justice’s court ought to have been in debt, because the contract implied was a contract for the payment of money only, the promise to pay in land being void, the state of demand ■claims damages for the refusal to convey the land, and we must infer that the damages actually recovered were the value of the land, and not the value of the horse. I am, therefore, of opinion that the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19485]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P.; License No. 05/05-0327; 
Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., One 
North Franklin Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60606, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(``the Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has 
sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of lnterest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security 
financing to Bully Pulpit Interactive, LLC, 1140 Connecticut Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20036 (``BPI'').
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a) and 
(d) of the Regulations because Svoboda Capital Fund IV, L.P. an 
Associate of Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., owns more than ten 
percent of BPI, and therefore this transaction is considered a 
financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 
20416.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator , Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2017-19485 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Felisha Diane Williams , Appellant

No. 06

- 20

- 00039

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 115th District Court of
Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 18,229 ).

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief

Justice Morriss

, Justice Burgess and Justice
Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s ju dgment to reflect that

Williams pled “ guilty ” to the indictment and “ true ” to the State ’ s punishment enhancement

allegation . As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Felisha Diane Williams , has adequately indic ated h er inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 16 , 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 30 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY P. MCNEIL; MARIAN J. MCNEIL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, sued as: The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-5109 (D.C. No. 96-CV-624) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s decision dis missing the individual defendants, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and granting the United States summary judgment on the remaining claims. We review the di strict court’s dismissal of the individual defendants de novo. See, e.g. , Grossman v. Novell, Inc. , 120 F.3d 1112, 1118 (10th Cir. 1997). So, too, do we review the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo, viewing the record in th e light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See, e.g. , J.B. v. Washington County , 127 F.3d 919, 923 (10th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Upon consideration of the record and the parties’ b riefs, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma for substantially the reasons stated inthat court’s order dated May 15, 1997. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 175 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 175

 Recognizing the roles and contributions of the teachers of the United 
  States to building and enhancing the civic, cultural, and economic 
                    well-being of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2015

Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Moran, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Casey, 
  Mr. Markey, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Ayotte, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
 Coons, Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Hirono, 
 Mr. Booker, Ms. Warren, Mr. Heinrich, and Mr. Menendez) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the roles and contributions of the teachers of the United 
  States to building and enhancing the civic, cultural, and economic 
                    well-being of the United States.

Whereas education and knowledge provide the foundation of the current and future 
        strength of the United States;
Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and deserve the respect 
        of students and communities for the selfless dedication of the teachers 
        to community service and to the futures of the children of the United 
        States;
Whereas the purpose of National Teacher Appreciation Week, celebrated from May 4 
        through May 8, 2015, is to raise public awareness of the unquantifiable 
        contributions of teachers and to promote greater respect and 
        understanding for the teaching profession; and
Whereas students, schools, communities, and a number of organizations 
        representing educators are hosting teacher appreciation events in 
        recognition of National Teacher Appreciation Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate thanks the teachers of the United States 
and promotes the profession of teaching by encouraging students, 
parents, school administrators, and public officials to participate in 
teacher appreciation events during National Teacher Appreciation Week.
                                 <all>
```