alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CANTIN, Respondent, v. CANTIN, Appellant (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Actions by Eugene J. Cantin against Louis de M. Cantin.

No opinion. Motions to dismiss appeal _granted, unless appeal is perfected within 15 days; case to be placed at the foot of the September calendar. On compliance, motions denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TRAC I COLLINS

,

Appellant,

v.

LENA LAXTON

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 04 1

- CV

Appeal from the

5 3rd District Court

of Travis County, Texas 1

(TC# D

- 1

- FM

- 15

- 006800 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellan t Trac i Collins filed a n unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal.

See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. Costs are taxed

against the A ppellant

. See T EX .R.A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

April 8, 2020

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Pa lafox, JJ.

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 41.3.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC (the
Fund) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 Fund.

|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  |                                                       |  | 
|------ |  | ------------------ |  | --- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: |  | November 10,
 2008 |  |     |  |        |  | RIDGEWOOD
 ENERGY P FUND, LLC                        
|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  |                                                       | 
|       |  |                    |  | By: |  | /s/    |  | ROBERT E.
 SWANSON                                    |  | 
|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  |                                                       | 
|       |  |                    |  |     |  | Name:  |  | Robert E.
 Swanson                                    | 
|       |  |                    |  |     |  | Title: |  | President
 and Chief Executive Officer               
|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  | (Principal
 Executive Officer)                        | 
|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  |                                                       | 
|Dated: |  | November 10,
 2008 |  |     |  |        |  |                                                       | 
|       |  |                    |  | By: |  | /s/    |  | KATHLEEN P.
 McSHERRY                                 | 
|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  |                                                      
|       |  |                    |  |     |  | Name:  |  | Kathleen P.
 McSherry                                 | 
|       |  |                    |  |     |  | Title: |  | Executive
 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|       |  |                    |  |     |  |        |  | (Principal
 Financial and Accounting Officer)        

A signed original of this written statement or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood
Energy P Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2013MN

_____________

William W. Swanson; *

*

Petitioner-Appellant, *

*

Thomas W. Bock; John Edward Allen; *

Brian L. Reigstad; Alan A. Orfi; Harry *

Gardner; Jeffrey A. Sebeck; Steven *

Krusel; Charles W. Ware; Charles R. *

Mitchell; Bruce Virgil Robinson; *

Richard J. Kellogg; Jason Hart; Jeffrey * Appeal from the United States

P. Hess; Brian J. Laramy; Lyf C. * District Court for the District

Wildenberg; Kevin Lamont Howard, * of Minnesota.

*

Petitioners, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

v. *

*

Frank Wood; Dennis Benson; Fred G. *

Lafleur; Mary Hogan, of Minnesota *

Department of Corrections, or their *

successors, *

*

Respondents-Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 6, 1998

Filed: February 11, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________
-2-

PER CURIAM.

William W. Swanson appeals the district court's denial of Swanson's petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. Swanson contends corrections officers misconstrued the

state's "good time" statute in violation of Swanson's constitutional rights. Having

reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the district court's

judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Jacqueline Grigoli, Appellant, v Carmine Grigoli, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 739]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated June *79329, 2005, which, in effect, without a hearing, granted the father’s application for temporary custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the father’s application for temporary custody is denied, and temporary custody is awarded to the mother pending a full hearing on the issue of permanent custody upon the condition that she shall not move the residence of the child beyond 60 radial miles from Manhattan without the prior, written consent of the father.

In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]; *Assini v Assini,*11 AD3d 417 [2004]; *Mauter v Mauter,*309 AD2d 737 [2003]; *Matter of Welsh v Lewis,*292 AD2d 536 [2002]), which requires an evaluation of the “totality of circumstances” *(Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). Custody determinations are ordinarily a matter for the hearing court, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis *(see Mauter v Mauter, supra; Matter of Welsh v Lewis, supra).*

Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, we find that the Family Court’s decision to award temporary custody of the child to the father is not supported by a substantial basis. Although the court properly considered the custodial arrangements set forth in the parties’ separation agreement, the existence of a prior agreement is not determinative of what is presently in the child’s best interest *(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra; DeCaprio v DeCaprio,*219 AD2d 575 [1995]). The child, who is now 14 years old, is currently residing with the mother and has repeatedly expressed a desire to continue to live with her. Furthermore, a psychologist who evaluated the child stated that she appeared quite depressed, and that while the child loved her father he made denigrating remarks to her which were contributing to her “overwhelming sadness.” Under these circumstances, we find that it is in the best interests of the child to remain in the temporary custody of her mother pending a full hearing on the issue of permanent custody, at which time issues concerning the child’s emotional well being can be more fully explored. However, in accordance with the parties’ separation agreement, the award of temporary custody is conditioned upon the mother not moving the residence of the child beyond 60 radial miles from Manhattan without the prior, written consent of the father.

The mother’s remaining contention is not properly before the Court on this appeal. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

# AGENCY:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Advisory Board (Board). Board members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described in the Agenda below.

# DATES:

The announced meeting is scheduled for Tuesday March 9—Wednesday March 10, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle Northwest, Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ann Andrus, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11704, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, 301-734-1088.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Board, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The duties of the Board were amended by the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-394). The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice.

                    The agenda for the meeting can be found at                     *http://www.seagrant.noaa.gov/​leadership/​advisoryboard/​agenda_​0310.pdf.*

Dated: February 4, 2010.

Mark E. Brown,

Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrator Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-2940 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-KA-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Dynatem, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
each hereby 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.

Dated: August 15, 2002

                                      /s/ Michael Horan
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Michael Horan, Chief Executive Officer


                                      /s/ Belen Ramos
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Belen Ramos, Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 20, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 20, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0320. IN THE INTEREST OF S. S. S. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

23JV00068 23JV69
Case 5:20-cv-00146-AW-MJF   Document 2   Filed 05/19/20   Page 1 of 1
[Crowe Chizek Letterhead]


Consent of Independent Auditors


Board of Directors
Peoples Bank Corporation of Indianapolis
Indianapolis, Indiana

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 (Reg. No.  33-98772) of Peoples Bank Corporation of Indianapolis of our
Report of Independent  Auditors,  dated  February 12, 1998, on the  consolidated
balance sheets of Peoples Bank  Corporation of  Indianapolis  as of December 31,
1997 and 1996 and the  related  consolidated  statements  of income,  changes in
shareholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the three  year
period ended December 31, 1997, which report is included in Form 10-K of Peoples
Bank Corporation of Indianapolis for the year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


March 28, 1998
Indianapolis, Indiana
June 29, 2015

Mr. Matthew Johnson

Prestige Aerial

14711 Burtons Oak

San Antonio, TX 78254

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 11, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0629), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole..

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SANTONIO LENORD MINUS, a/k/a Cheese, a/k/a Baldhead, a/k/a 

B.G., a/k/a Santonio Minus,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (5:12-cr-00014-MFU-RSB-5; 5:15-cv-80802-MFURSB)

Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Santonio Lenord Minus, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Grayson A. 

Hoffman, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Harrisonburg, Virginia; Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Craig Jon Jacobsen, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Santonio Lenord Minus seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Minus 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
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

USA, 

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01055-MP All Defendants

DOUGLAS A FLYNN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 66, Request for Copies of Judgment &

Commitment and Sentencing Transcripts by Douglas A. Flynn. The Court contacted the Office

of the Federal Public Defender to inquire whether the defendant has been provided the

requested documents. The Office of the Federal Public Defender responded to the defendant’s

request, and provided him with a copy of the Judgment & Commitment, Doc. 53. However, the

Office of the Federal Public Defender no longer has the Sentencing Transcripts, Doc. 59. The

file was archived by the Court in 2002. Nevertheless, the defendant may obtain a copy of the

transcript at his expense by contacting the court reporter, Judy Nolton, at the United States

Courthouse,111 N. Adams St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s request for a copy of his Judgment & Commitment, Doc. 66, is

DENIED as moot.

2. Defendant’s request for a copy of his Sentencing Transcripts, Doc. 66, is

DENIED on the grounds that the file has been archived.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2011.

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
O

ugust 

, 

0

3, t

e 

eb

as

a 

epa

t

e

t o

o

e

ta

Qua

ty (

Q) sub

tted a

ast

uctu

e 

State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard {2010 S02I-SIP). 

Documents were included with the 2010 S02 I-SIP to clarify the requirements in Section 128 of the federal 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The NDEQ is requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

approve these documents into the Nebraska State Implementation Plan {SIP). The documents to be included 

are: 

1. Section 49-1493(13) of the "Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act"; and 

2. Chapter 2 of Title 4- Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission 

In addition, Nebraska is submitting the following attached document as clarification to the 2010 S02 I-SIP with 

regards to the requirements of Section 128 and further requests that this document be approved into the 

Nebraska SIP: 

Title 116- Department of Environmental Control Code of Ethics ofthe Nebraska Administrative Code 

The NDEQ requests that the EPA amend the Nebraska SIP to include the referenced documents, to the extent 

that they are deemed approvable. 

Attached is a searchable pdf version of Title 116- Department of Environmental Control Code of Ethics. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions regarding this clarification, please contact 

Brian Kozisek, Grants, Planning, and Outreach Unit Supervisor at (402) 471-6624 or me at {402) 471-4299. 

Shelley Schneider 

Air Quality Division Administrator 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

1200 N Street, Suite 400 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

PH: 402-471-4299 

Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

1
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-3 (No.’s 33-13793 and 33-34301) and Forms S-8(No.’s 33-18932, 33-29291, 33-35091, 33-37696, 33-37697,33-37698, 33-55596, 33-73040, 333-15113, 333-88295,333-55556, 33-103677, and 333-134977) of Candela Corporationand subsidiaries of our reports dated September 1, 2006, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule and the effectiveness of CandelaCorporation and subsidiaries  internalcontrols over financial reporting which appears in this Form 10-K.

|                         | /s/ BDO  SEIDMAN, LLP |
|-------------------------|-----------------------|
| Boston, Massachusetts   |                  |
| September 11, 2006 |                  |

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1962

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1962.48 [Reserved]
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 96 Filed 02/09/00 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 96 Filed 02/09/00 Page 2 of 2
§ 3550.9 Conflict of interest. ( a ) *Objective.* It is the objective of RHS to maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and impartiality by employees. To reduce the potential for employee conflict of interest, all processing, approval, servicing, or review activity will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 1900, subpart D by RHS employees who: ( 1 ) Are not themselves the applicant or borrower;
( 2 ) Are not members of the family or close known relatives of the applicant or borrower;
( 3 ) Do not have an immediate working relationship with the applicant or borrower, the employee related to the applicant or borrower, or the employee who would normally conduct the activity; or
( 4 ) Do not have a business or close personal association with the applicant or borrower.
( b ) *Applicant or borrower responsibility.* The applicant or borrower must disclose any known relationship or association with an RHS employee when such information is requested.
( c ) *RHS employee responsibility.* An RHS employee must disclose any known relationship or association with a recipient, regardless of whether the relationship or association is known to others. RHS employees or members of their families may not purchase a Real Estate Owned (REO) property, security property from a borrower, or security property at a foreclosure sale. Loan closing agents who have been involved with a particular property, as well as members of their families, are also precluded from purchasing such properties.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996; 61 FR 65266, Dec. 11, 1996; 75 FR 59060, Sept. 27, 2010]