alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

May29, 2017

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Wednesday, June14,2017

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillhearoralargumentinthematter*Secretaryof*

*Laborv.LehighAnthraciteCoal,LLC,*etal.,DocketNos.PENN2014-108,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinconcludingthatsendingaminerintothepitinquestionconstituted“highnegligence” ratherthan recklessdisregard.”)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthisoralargumentwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACT PERSON

FORMORE INFO:                Emogene Johnson (202)434-9935/ (202) 708-9300for TDD

Relay/1-800-877-8339for toll free.

 

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

ARGUMENT:1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode:678-100

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

ANDRE TREMAYNE HODGE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D12-5624 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed August 6, 2014. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Ashley Moody, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

VILLANTI, Judge. 

 Andre Tremayne Hodge seeks review of his convictions and sentences in 

seven separate circuit court cases, all of which arose out of a crime spree that occurred 
- 2 -

in January 2012. Having considered the entire record and the State's partial concession 

of error, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 

 Hodge initially entered pleas of not guilty to all of the charges in all seven 

of the cases. However, after the trial court denied Hodge's motions to suppress his 

statements and certain physical evidence, Hodge reached a plea agreement with the 

State that involved him changing his pleas to no contest in exchange for the State's 

waiving certain sentencing enhancements. The trial court subsequently held a change 

of plea hearing, during which it addressed all of the charges in all of the cases except 

one—circuit court case number 12-CF-003535. In that single case, the trial court never 

held a plea colloquy with Hodge and never received a change of his plea. 

Nevertheless, the trial court sentenced Hodge for the three offenses charged in that 

case, and a written judgment and sentence were later rendered based on a no contest 

plea that was never actually entered. 

 Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(k) requires the trial court to 

determine in open court that a guilty or nolo contendere plea is voluntarily entered and 

that there is a factual basis for such plea. Here, Hodge never formally changed his plea 

of not guilty in circuit court case number 12-CF-003535, and no trial was ever held on 

the charges in that case. Hence, the legal requirements of rule 3.170(k) were clearly 

not fulfilled, and the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing Hodge in that case. 

Because we are unable to correct this inadvertency by appellate mandate, we must 

reverse Hodge's conviction and sentences in case number 12-CF-003535 and remand 

for further proceedings. And because it appears that this error was simply an oversight 
- 3 -

on the part of all involved, we encourage the State to work with Hodge to effectuate the 

intent of his original plea agreement. In all other respects, we affirm. 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. 

DAVIS, C.J., and BLACK, J., Concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 0 0010

- CV

Pedro MARQUEZ , Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Lisa A. WATKINS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC

- 14

- 89

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Gay Richey's notification of late reporter's record is hereby NOTED. The reporter's

record is due on or before May 22, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of April, 20 15

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10224 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES RAY RYAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(1:05-CV-15) (1:04-CR-22)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant James Ray Ryan, federal prisoner # 32861-177, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion, Ryan challenged the validity of his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Ryan also asserted that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal, although he specifically requested that counsel do so.2

A COA may issue only if Ryan makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “The COA determination under § 2253(c) requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Id. at 327. With respect to his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea, Ryan has failed to meet the standard required for the issuance of a COA. Accordingly, Ryan’s motion for a COA is DENIED

as to this issue. Ryan has, however, made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477, 483 (2000). Because he alleges that he specifically requested that counsel file a notice of appeal, Ryan was not required to demonstrate that he would have presented merit worthy issues on appeal. See id. at 485. Further, Ryan’s § 2255 motion was made under penalty of perjury and was competent evidence supporting his claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1746; see Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 764 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Ryan’s § 2255 motion and the files3

and records of this case do not conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing was required. See United States v. Hughes, 635 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ryan’s motion for a COA is GRANTED solely on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue. The judgment is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further development in the district court.
RAYMOND HAYNES

,

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. 1D 16

- 1772

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 17, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., LEWIS

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE COMPANY'S INTERIM UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                 28,830
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                               110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       34,361
<PP&E>                                 86,786
<DEPRECIATION>                        (38,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         82,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   7,760
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  107
<OTHER-SE>                             68,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           82,823
<SALES>                                15,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       37,663
<CGS>                                   5,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          14,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        21,156
<INCOME-TAX>                            5,695
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    15,461
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           15,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.44<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.44<F1>
<FN>
<F1>  Per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 21

                              List of Subsidiaries


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Subsidiary                   State of Inc   Name Doing Business Under
<S>                                  <C>            <C>  

Royal CF Corp.                       NY             Royal Canadian Pancake House Restaurant

Royal Canadian 2286 Broadway, Inc.   NY             Royal Canadian Pancake House Restaurant

RCF 180 Third Avenue Corp.           NY             Royal Canadian Pancake House Restaurant

Hudson Street RCF Corp.              DE             None - Inactive

RCF South Beach Corp.                DE             Prairie Foods, LLC

RCF Lincoln Corp.                    DE             None - Inactive

Begare Enterprises, Inc.             FL             Royal Canadian Womlett House Restaurant

Yoystra Enterprises, Inc.            FL             Royal Canadian Pancake House Restaurant
</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BESTWAY (USA), INC.,

Appellant

v.

INTEX RECREATION CORP.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2020-2200

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00454.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN S. ARTZ, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by STEVEN A.

CALOIARO, Reno, NV. 

 R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath 

LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellee. Also represented by REID E. DODGE, DANIEL M. LECHLEITER, ANDREW 

M. MCCOY. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 20-2200 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 09/07/2021
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 

September 7, 2021

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-2200 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 09/07/2021
Unassociated Document


    This
      Letter of Release (“Agreement”) is effective this  
      day of
      September 2007 and sets forth the amendments to the specific details of the
      arrangements regarding the “Shareholder Agreement”, dated of June 18, 2007
      between Zupintra Corporation, Inc. (“ZUPC”) and Network Technologies
      International, Inc. (“NTI”) (the “Shareholder Agreement”).

    


    WHEREAS,
      ZUPC agrees to pay to NTI thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000) in shares
      of
      common stock of ZUPC as a penalty for ZUPC not being in the position to fulfill
      the obligations as listed in the Shareholders Agreement, dated June 18, 2007.
      Said shares will be at a 20% discount of market price. ZUPC shall have no
      further liabilities to the Shareholders Agreement, dated June 18, 2007; the
      said
      Shareholders Agreement is hereby annulled.

    


    However,
      ZUPC shall hold the opportunity for 60 days from the date hereof to continue
      to
      fund NTI for the project in Ghana.

    


    By
      signing this agreement, both parties understand, acknowledge, and agree to
      the
      above.

    


    
      	 	 	 
	 	NETWORK
              TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	Date: 	By:  	 
	 	
              

            
	 	Title 


    

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	ZUPINTRA
              CORPORATION, INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	Date: 	By:  	 
	 	
              
John
              van Arem
	 	Title 


    

    


    
      	 	 	 
	 	ZUPINATRA
              GHANA, INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	Date: 	By:  	 
	 	
              

            
	 	Title
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of TechTeam Global, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W.
Morgan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: March 16, 2006                         /s/ David W. Morgan
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             David W. Morgan
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon

Mobil Corporation

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00852

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 22667

Tria l court: 125th District Court of Harris County

Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

, Exxon Mobil Co rporation, has filed an objection to this

Court ’ s November 21, 2019 Order of Referral to Mediation. The Court ’ s O r der of Referral to

mediation is hereby withdrawn.

It i s so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

________ __ /s/ Julie Countiss

___________ Acting individually

Date: December 10, 2019
#### STOUSE et al. v. EXCISE BOARD OF COAL COUNTY.

No. 25510.

Dec. 11, 1934.

Jas. R. Wood, for plaintiffs in error.

Wylie Snow, Go. Atty., and W. B. Howell, for defendant in error.

OSBORN, J.

This is an appeal by Felix Wheeler and W. H. Stouse from a judgment of the Court of Tax Review denying a protest relating to the salaries of certain county officers of Goal county.

It appears that, in 1921, there was enacted a special act (section 7832, O. S. 1931) fixing certain salaries for the county officers ■of Coal county, and that the salaries so fixed are in excess of the amounts claimed by ■said officers for the fiscal year 1933-34. It is pointed out that the population of said •county decreased approximately 7,000 as shown by the 1930 census. According to the general statutes, section 7833, 7847, 7870, 7881, and 7890, O. S. 1931, ilie salaries of each of said officers, computed on the basis of the 1930 population, would be $350 less than the amount claimed by the officers for the fiscal year in question. Reliance is had on section 7827, O. S. 1931, which is as follows :

> “The salaries of all county officers, deputies and clerks in each and every county of the state of Oklahoma that were decreased by the operation of 1930 federal census, shall remain and continue until otherwise provided by law, as the same existed previous to the announcement of said census.”

Protestants contend that the officers are either entitled to the amount fixed by the special act or are entitled to the amount fixed by the general statutes on the basis of the population of 1930.

The question of the constitutionality of the special act is not presented by either of the parties to this appeal, and we shall not consider the question. But, conceding that the act is unconstitutional, in that event the above-quoted statute operates to prevent the reduction of the salaries of said public officials by reason of the decreased population as disclosed by the 1930 census. This is the view adopted and acted upon by the board of county commissioners in preparing their estimate, and apparently has the sanction of the various officials. There is therefore no merit in the protest filed herein, and the judgment of the Court of Tax Review is affirmed.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and BUSBY, JJ, concur.
**Exhibit
      13.2**





**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Aladdin
      Knowledge Systems Ltd. (the
      “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, Aviram
      Shemer ,
      Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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





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





Date:
      March 27, 2008


By /s/
              Aviram ShemerAviram
                Shemer
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
2013-0999.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters.

It is ordered by this court, sua sponte, that respondent, Eric Charles Deters, produce on or before 30 days from the date of this order a complete copy of all documents developed in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Kentucky, Character and Fitness Committee, upon respondent’s application for reinstatement in Supreme Court of Kentucky case Nos. 2012-SC-000666 and 2012-SC-000667. It is further ordered that respondent shall certify that he is producing all such records in his possession.
# Assistance for Seniors and Adult Care

Nutrition Security is important at every stage of life.  

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

### FNS programs ensure people at every stage of life have access to nutritious food.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program

Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program

Child and Adult Care Food Program

Spotlights

MyPlate for Older Adults

Eating healthy has benefits that can help people ages 60 and up. As we age, healthy eating can make a difference in our health, help to improve how we feel, and encourage a sense of well-being.

CSFP Sharing Gallery

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) Sharing Gallery is a collection of resources and materials to assist state and local agencies who administer CSFP and provide food and nutrition information to program participants. Resources have been organized by format type.

Connecting Older Adults to Information on Benefits and Services

Nutrition for Older Adults

Nutrition in the CSFP Food Package

Adult Day Care Centers

CACFP Recipes for Child Care Homes and Adult Day Care

USDA's Focus on Nutrition Security

Page updated: November 02, 2023
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.41

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$21,760.00                                               Dated: April 18, 1997


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned ("Maker") hereby promises
to pay to the order of Mark Schmerling ("Lender"), at an address in Israel
provided by the Lender, upon June 18, 1997, the principal sum of TWENTY-ONE
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY ($21,760.00) DOLLARS AND 00/100. Interest shall
accrue from the date hereof at the rate of twelve percent per annum (or at the
highest rate permitted by law, if lower) on the unpaid principal balance from
time to time outstanding.

                  Payment of the principal of, and interest on, this Note shall
be payable at the aforesaid address in the lawful money of the United States of
America, or at such other place as the holder of this Note shall have designated
to the Maker in writing.

                  Maker and endorsers severally waive presentment, protest,
demand, and notice of protest, of demand and of dishonor and of nonpayment of
this Note and expressly agree that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be
extended from time to time by Lender without in any way affecting the liability
of Maker and endorsers hereof.

                  This Note will in all respects be governed by and construed in
accordance with the New York Uniform Commercial Code.

                  This Note and its provisions shall inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon, the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the Maker and
the Lender.


                                          ROYAL CANADIAN FOODS CORP.


                                          By:
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Sheldon Golumbia, President
# Grants

## Breadcrumb

-  Funding 
-                       Grant Opportunities                  

# Grants

## Open Grant Opportunities

# Grants

## Closed Grant Opportunities

-    First  
-    Previous  
-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last  

Page updated: December 29, 2023