alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen Figurka, Respondent, v. Amelia Figurka, Appellant.

In an action by a husband for a divorce and for the custody of the two infant children of the marriage, the defendant wife appeals from an interloetory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 17, 1960 upon the decision of the court, after a non jury trial, dissolving the marriage by reason of her adultery and awarding to the husband the custody of the children with specified rights of visitation to the wife. Interlocutory judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, amended (or supplemental) complaint, insofar as it seeks a divorce on the ground of adultery, dismissed, without costs; pursuant to the authority conferred by section 1170-a of the Civil Practice Act, the custody of the two infant children is awarded to the plaintiff husband, and the wife is granted the same visitation rights now set forth in the third and fourth decretal paragraphs of the interlocutory judgment; and final judgment *939is directed to be entered accordingly, without costs. Finding of fact No. 9, insofar as it declares: (a) “that the plaintiff has not voluntarily cohabited with the defendant since ” his discovery of her adultery, and (b) that the plaintiff has not “forgiven or condoned the same,” is reversed; and contrary findings are hereby made. The following additional finding is also made: That, under all the circumstances, the welfare and best interests of the children require that they be placed in the custody of the father, with appropriate rights of visitation accorded to the mother. The action was commenced in August, 1958. Two acts of adultery committed on December 2, 1957 and April 24, 1959, respectively, are alleged in the amended complaint. As of trial on January 25, 1960, the parties and their two children, aged 13 and 15 years, were continuing to live in the same three-room apartment which they had occupied throughout the course of the action and the alleged adulteries. While the evidence warrants the finding of adultery made by the trial court, the finding in favor of plaintiff on the issue of condonation is against the weight of the credible evidence. Plaintiff testified that he had a cot three or four feet away from a couch on which defendant slept, whereas defendant said that the parties have been “ cohabiting all along” and that they jointly occupied the couch. Plaintiff did not take the stand to testify in rebuttal. In our opinion, he failed to rebut the presumption of cohabitation arising: (a) from continued residence with the offending spouse with knowledge of her acts of adultery, and (b) from his own testimony as to the proximity of their respective sleeping places. Under all the circumstances here, plaintiff’s *pro forma*denial of intercourse or cohabitation with defendant after acquiring knowledge of her adultery, has no probative force. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
REVERSE and REMAND ; and Opinion Filed April 2, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 00051

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 52691

- 07



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang

- Miers

, and Murphy Opinion by Justice Murphy

This appeal arises out of an order in a suit to modify the parent ch ild relationship, signed

by the trial court on October 19, 2011. After the appeal was submitted, we abated the appeal and

ordered the parties to attend mediation.

The parties have jointly filed a “Mediated Settlement Agreement” in which they informed

th e Court they have agreed to settle their dispute. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, we reverse

the trial court’s October 19, 2011 order and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to

enter an agreed order based upon the terms set forth in t he Mediated Settlement Agreement.

120051F.P05 /Mary Murphy/ MARY MURPHY JUSTICE2 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.B., A CHILD,

No. 05

- 12

- 00051

- CV On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366

- 52691

- 07. Opinion delivered by Justice Murphy. Justices FitzGerald and Lang

- Miers participating.

In accordance with the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s October 19, 2011 order is REV ERSED and this case is REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to enter an agreed order based upon the terms set forth in the March 25, 2013 Mediated Settlement Agreement signed by Christina Bouchard and Jason Bouchard. We ORDER that each party bear its own costs of appeal.

Judgment entered this 2 nd day of April, 2013.

/Mary Murphy/
MARY MURPHY JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51196 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUADALUPE SANDOVAL-TINAJERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-156-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Sandoval-Tinajero raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTIONS
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Radale Imports, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Ken Swanson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o (d)); and





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





Dated:
              February 19, 2008
            
            */s/ Ken Swanson*Ken
                Swanson
              Chief
                Financial Officer




The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit
        32.1
Memorandum

Date:

To: Balaji Vaidyanathan, Permit Section Manager

From: Eric Massey, Air Quality Division Director

Subject: Proposed Final Permits to be Treated as Appealable Agency Actions

The 2012 amendments to our permit rules, which were adopted in order to meet federal new 

source review requirements, provide that an applicant for a Class I permit or Class I permit 

revision may begin actual construction, but not operation, on receipt of a “proposed final 

permit.” R18-2-302(G); R18-2-334(B). A proposed final permit is “the version of a Class I 

permit or Class I permit revision that the Department proposes to issue and forwards to the 

Administrator for review,” as required by § 502 of Title V of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

7661d.

In effect, under the revised rules, a proposed final permit is treated as a final authorization to 

construct. The purpose of this treatment is to ensure that Arizona’s unitary permit program does 

not place restrictions on Arizona industries that they would not face in jurisdictions with binary

programs. Under a binary program, separate permits are issued to construct and operate, and only 

permits to operate are subject to EPA review under Title V. Thus a source in a jurisdiction with a 

binary program ordinarily would have the authority to proceed with construction under a 

construction permit before EPA review of the Title V permit or permit revision occurred.

Under Arizona administrative law, an “appealable agency action” is defined as “an action that 

determines the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party.” Because a proposed final permit or 

permit revision under the revised rules determines the applicant’s right to construct, it must be 

treated as an appealable agency action separate from the issuance of the final permit or permit 

revision.

1 We must therefore issue a notice of appealable agency action for both the proposed 

final permit or permit revision, as well as the final permit or permit revision.

Please distribute this memorandum to all of your permit engineers so that they are aware of this 

obligation. In addition, make sure that the subject matter of this memorandum is covered in any 

training for permit engineers hired in the future.

 

1 Duplicative appeals can be avoided by consolidating appeals of proposed final permit and final permits, should 

they occur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40357 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP CURTIS PATTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CR-36-1

_________________________________________________________________ February 5, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellant appeals from the district court's sentence for

use of an explosive to damage or destroy a building. He argues

that the district court should have adjusted his offense level

downward for acceptance of responsibility and that the court should

not have up wardly departed under the Sentencing Guidelines. We

have reviewed th e record and the transcript of the sentencing

hearing in the district court and find no reversible error.-2-

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the appellant's sentence for essentially the

reasons given by the district court. U nited States v. Patton
, No.

6:94-CR-36-1 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 1995).

A F F I R M E D.
§ 203.46 To which production do I apply the royalty suspension supplements from drilling one or two certified unsuccessful wells on my lease? ( a ) Subject to the requirements of §§ 203.40, 203.43, 203.45, 203.47, and 203.48 you must apply an RSS in § 203.45 to the earliest oil and gas production: ( 1 ) Occurring on and after the day you file the information under § 203.47(b),
( 2 ) From, or allocated under a BSEE-approved unit agreement to, the lease on which the certified unsuccessful well was drilled, without regard to the drilling depth of the well producing the gas or oil.
( b ) If you have a royalty suspension volume for the lease under § 203.41, you must use the royalty suspension volumes for gas produced from qualified wells on the lease before using royalty suspension supplements for gas produced from qualified wells. Example to paragraph (b): You have two shallow oil wells on your lease. Then you drill a certified unsuccessful well and earn a royalty suspension supplement of 5 BCFE. Thereafter, you begin production from an original well that is a qualified well that earns a royalty suspension volume of 15 BCF. You use only 2 BCFE of the royalty suspension supplement before the oil wells deplete. You must use up the 15 BCF of royalty suspension volume before you use the remaining 3 BCFE of the royalty suspension supplement for gas produced from the qualified well.
( c ) If you have no current production on which to apply the RSS allowed under § 203.45, your RSS applies to the earliest subsequent production of gas and oil from, or allocated under a BSEE-approved unit agreement to, your lease.
( d ) Unused royalty suspension supplements transfer to a successor lessee and expire with the lease.
( e ) You may not apply the RSS allowed under § 203.45 to production from any other lease, except for production allocated to your lease from a BSEE-approved unit agreement. If your certified unsuccessful well is on a lease subject to a BSEE-approved unit agreement, the lessees of other leases in the unit may not apply any portion of the RSS for your lease to production from the other leases in the unit.
( f ) You must begin or resume paying royalties when cumulative gas and oil production from, or allocated under a BSEE-approved unit agreement to, your lease (excluding any gas produced from qualified wells subject to a royalty suspension volume allowed under § 203.41) reaches the applicable royalty suspension supplement. For the month in which the cumulative production reaches this royalty suspension supplement, you owe royalties on the portion of gas or oil production that exceeds the amount of the royalty suspension supplement remaining at the beginning of that month.
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION

        I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
        Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
        respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,
        of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2004-18CB;

        2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
        whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
        report;

        3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
        required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
        the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
        these reports is included in these reports;

        4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
        master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
        and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
        under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
        master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
        and

        5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
        master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
        based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
        after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
        Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set
        forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is
        included in these reports.

        In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
        information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
        Bank of New York, as Trustee, and Litton Loan Servicing LP.

        Date: March 29, 2005

                                  /s/ Steve Bailey
                                  -----------------
                                  Steve Bailey
                                  Senior Managing Director
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: May 5, 2011 Meeting with the American Railroad Association and the Creosote Council representatives on the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On May 5, 2011, EPA met with members of th e American Railroad Association and representatives from the Creosote Council to discu ss their issues and concer ns with the final rule entitled, “Identification of Non- Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is referred to as
the 2011 NHSM Final Rule.

During that meeting, industry members expressed c oncerns with the rule’s impact on the use of creosote treated railroad ties as fuels, discussi ng how they considered the railroad ties to be a
traditional fuel and how the contaminants are comparable to coal tar oil.

EPA asked clarifying questions rega rding the information presented.

For further details, see the attached meeting materials provided by industry.

Attachments: 1. “EPA Has Incorrectly Classified Creosote Treated Wood As A Solid Waste For Combustion Purposes” 2. “Comments to EPA Regarding Creosote Treated Wood as Fuel” 3. Table A; UPRR 2009 Tie Pr ogram – Sampling Data

Meeting Attendees:
American Railroad Association and the Creosote Council representatives

Invited EPA attendees: Chair: George Faison
Jim BerlowKenneth Dixon
Michael Galbraith
Mimi Guernica
Michael Svizzero
Tab Tesnau
Marc Thomas
### §1009. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §56(d), 65 Stat. 729

Section, act Mar. 8, 1902, ch. 140, §9, 32 Stat. 55, related to requirements as to evidence in treason cases in Philippines.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Savings Provision

Act Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §56(l), 65 Stat. 730, provided that the repeal of this section should not affect any rights or liabilities existing hereunder on the effective date of that repeal (Oct. 31, 1951).
#### Boudewijn Edens, Also Known as Bob Edens, Respondent, v Touragent International, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 19, 1977 (based on the memorandum decision of Baer, J., dated Jan. 10, 1977), unanimously affirmed (see *North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons,*22 NY2d 171, 176-177). The respondent shall recover of the appellant $60 costs and disburse-*963merits of this appeal. No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
§ 15.10 Post-approval product audit. ( a ) Approved explosives and sheathed explosive units shall be subject to periodic audits by MSHA for the purpose of determining conformity with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based. Any approved explosive or sheathed explosive unit which is to be audited shall be selected by MSHA and be representative of those distributed for use in mines. The approval-holder may obtain any final report resulting from such audit.
( b ) No more than once a year, except for cause, the approval-holder, at MSHA's request, shall make one case of explosives or 25 sheathed explosive units available at no cost to MSHA for an audit. The approval-holder may observe any tests conducted during this audit.
( c ) An approved explosive or sheathed explosive unit shall be subject to audit for cause at any time MSHA believes that it is not in compliance with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based.
( d ) Explosives approved under regulations in effect prior to January 17, 1989, shall conform to the provisions on field samples set out in those regulations (See 30 CFR part 15, 1987 edition).
### §20503. Amending regulations and changing requirements

The Secretary of Transportation may amend a regulation or change a requirement applicable to a railroad carrier for installing, maintaining, inspecting, or repairing a signal system under this chapter—

(1) when the carrier files with the Secretary a request for the amendment or change and the Secretary approves the request; or

(2) on the Secretary's own initiative for good cause shown.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 884.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20503 | 49 App.:26(c). | Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379, §25(c); added Feb. 28, 1920, ch. 91, §441, 41 Stat. 498; restated Aug. 26, 1937, ch. 818, 50 Stat. 836; Sept. 18, 1940, ch. 722, §14(b), 54 Stat. 919; June 22, 1988, Pub. L. 100–342, §17(3), (8), 102 Stat. 635, 636. |
| | 49 App.:1655(e)(6)(A). | Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, §6(e)(6)(A), 80 Stat. 939. |

Section

In this section, before clause (1), the text of 49 App.:26(c) (words before 2d proviso) is omitted as executed. The words "The Secretary of Transportation may amend . . . change" are substituted for "and approved by the Secretary of Transportation" and "the Secretary may . . . revise, amend, or modify" for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "regulation or . . . a requirement applicable to a railroad carrier for installing, maintaining, inspecting, or repairing a signal system under this chapter" are substituted for "rules, standards, and instructions herein provided for" and "rules, standards, and instructions prescribed by him under this subsection" for clarity, for consistency in the revised title, and because of the restatement. Clause (1) is substituted for "such railroad may from time to time change . . . but such change shall not take effect and the new rules, standards, and instructions be enforced until they shall have been filed with" for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "and as revised, amended, or modified they shall be obligatory upon the railroad after a copy thereof shall have been served as above provided" are omitted as being superseded by 5:ch. 5, subch. II.
Exhibit 23.1


	
                      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


	We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration 
Statement of Baker Hughes Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated 
November 12, 1997, incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on 
Form 10-K of Baker Hughes Incorporated for the year ended September 
30, 1997.



Deloitte & Touche LLP



Houston, Texas
April 1, 1998
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Michael W.
Zima, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (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 operation of the Company.




/s/   Michael W.
      ZimaMichael W. Zima
                Chief Financial Officer
                August 14, 2009
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1634 Site security. ( a ) All locations where sulphur is produced, measured, or stored shall be operated and maintained to ensure against the loss or theft of produced sulphur and to assure accurate and complete measurement of produced sulphur for royalty purposes.
( b ) Evidence of mishandling of produced sulphur from an offshore lease, or tampering or falsifying any measurement of production for an offshore lease, shall be reported to the Regional Supervisor as soon as possible but no later than the next business day after discovery of the evidence of mishandling.