alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42471.

#### HUDGINS v. PURE OIL COMPANY.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. In this suit on a note, defendant simply denied the paragraph of plaintiff’s petition which included the note and alleged the indebtedness. This denial was in effect a plea of the general issue, and as against an unconditional contract in writing, was insufficient as a defense against recovery for the principal and interest on the note. *Kingery v. Yancey Bros. Co.,*100 Ga. App. 178, 180 (110 SE2d 411); *Medlock v. Wood,*4 Ga. App. 368, 369 (61 SE 516); *Wood v. Noland Credit Co.,*113 Ga. App. 749 (2) (149 SE2d 720). However, in another paragraph of his answer defendant denied a paragraph of plaintiff’s petition alleging the giving of the notice required by *Code Ann.*§ 20-506 in order to recover attorney’s fees. This denial was a sufficient defense on the issue of attorney’s fees, and therefore the answer, though defective in another respect, was not wholly bad. *Hicks v. Hamilton,*3 Ga. App. 112, 117 (59 SE 331); *Glaze v. Fulton Nat. Bank,*114 Ga. App. 291 (2) (151 SE2d 478). See also *Kreischer v. Bank of Louisville,*32 Ga. App. 699 (3, 4) (124 SE 539); *Greenwood v. Greenwood,*44 Ga. App. 847 (2) (163 SE 317). Since a part of the answer was sufficient, the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer in its entirety. *Glaze v. Fulton Nat. Bank,*114 Ga. App. 291 (2), supra.

2. This action having been filed in DeKalb Civil Court and defendant having failed to file a written demand for jury trial in accordance with the terms of Section 12 of an Act of 1951 (Ga. L. 1951, pp. 2401, 2405), defendant must be held to have waived a trial by jury. *Owen v. Stevenson,*18 Ga. App. 391 (89 SE 435); *Cherry v. McCutchen,*68 Ga. App. 682 (23 SE2d 587); *Stamps Tire Co. v. Hartford Accident &c. Co.,*115 Ga. App. 326 (2).

3. The record does not disclose that the trial court failed “to consider and rule upon appellant’s plea of illegality of consideration” as alleged in the first enumeration. The judgment of the court recites that evidence was heard, that defendant’s answer was stricken and that judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Under these circumstances, there being no transcript of the proceedings in the record, it must be presumed that the trial judge had before him ample *544evidence to authorize a judgment for plaintiff. *Stamps Tire Co. v. Hartford Accident &c. Co.,*115 Ga. App. 326 (3), supra.

*Jordan and Pannell, JJ., concur.*

Submitted January 5, 1967

Decided April 7, 1967.

*J. C. Rary,*for appellant.

*Andrew A. Baumstark,*for appellee.

The judgment will be affirmed with direction that plaintiff write off the amount of attorney’s fees included in the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed with direction.*
# C_2022369EN.01000201.xml

| 27.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 September 2022

(2022/C 369/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 0,9646 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4365 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89404 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9275 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9555 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3585 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,640 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 408,83 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7608 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9418 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 17,8001 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4858 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3195 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 7,5720 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6886 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,3842 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 379,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,4247 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9075 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5278 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 620,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4401 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,908 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,496 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,1504 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,6066 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,7040 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

0,9646

JPY

Japanese yen

139,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4365

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89404

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9275

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9555

ISK

Iceland króna

138,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3585

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,640

HUF

Hungarian forint

408,83

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7608

RON

Romanian leu

4,9418

TRY

Turkish lira

17,8001

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4858

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3195

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

7,5720

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6886

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,3842

KRW

South Korean won

1 379,40

ZAR

South African rand

17,4247

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9075

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5278

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 620,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4401

PHP

Philippine peso

56,908

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,496

BRL

Brazilian real

5,1504

MXN

Mexican peso

19,6066

INR

Indian rupee

78,7040

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic Change Worksheet QPM#

Date: December 17, 2008 Revision 

### 1


# Record ofContacts 

# 2,~'O=O~~f FDMS Docket No.FAA 388 

## = Withwhom outsiue the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date Boeing Tim Rudkin 12/01/09 ATA Joe White 12107/09

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master list 10Verify That This isthe Correct Revision Before Use
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Robert C. Larry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metal Management, Inc.;

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 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:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: February 10, 2004                     /s/ Robert C. Larry
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert C. Larry
                                             Executive Vice President, Finance
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption 11904, Docket No. FAA-2014-0275 

To Whom It May Concern: 

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 C.P.R.)§ 11.61, FedEx 

Express, with FAA Air Carrier Cetiificate FDEA140A, petitions the Administrator for an 

extension of Exemption No. 11904 (Docket No. FAA-2014-0275). This exemption is scheduled 

to expire on July 31, 2017. 

The exemption allows FedEx aircraft dispatchers the ability to use a single line oriented flight 

training (LOFT) event, including the pre-LOFT and post-LOFT briefing events, to meet the 

annual dispatcher operational familiarization requirements of 14 C.P.R. § 121.463(c), provided 

the pilot-training LOFT event was conducted in accordance with the FedEx Advanced 

Qualification Program. 

This exemption has been used since it was awarded with no compromise in safety. With regard 

to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, the circumstances that wananted the initial 

grant of exemption continue to exist today. 

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. For this reason, and the reasons 

stated above, FedEx requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving publication in the 

Federal Register. Granting the requested relief will set no precedents outside the original 

petition. 

Please contact Douglas K Snow, Senior GOC Specialist, at 901.397.8228 or 

douglas.snow@fedex.com, or J. Mark Hansen, Lead Counsel Regulatory Affairs, at 

901.434.8583, or jmhansen@fedex.com, if you require any additional infmmation. 

Sincerely yours, 

~,l_ \- ark Hansen 

Lead Counsel 

Regulatory Affairs 

Phone 901.424.8583 

Fax: 901.434.8283
# C_2016347EN.01003401.xml

| 22.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/34

---

Action brought on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-2/16)

(2016/C 347/06)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer, represented by Antonius Falkner, Attorney-at-law, Lettstrasse 18, FL-9490 Vaduz.

The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

| 1. | Annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015, and

| 2. | Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The applicant, Dr Gerhard Spitzer, is an Austrian citizen, domiciled in South Africa, which has been a customer of LLB AG, a company under majority ownership of the Principality of Liechtenstein, since the early 1990s. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant, Dr Gerhard Spitzer, is an Austrian citizen, domiciled in South Africa, which has been a customer of LLB AG, a company under majority ownership of the Principality of Liechtenstein, since the early 1990s.

| — | The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close a case regarding a complaint against Liechtenstein concerning a failure to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close a case regarding a complaint against Liechtenstein concerning a failure to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC.

| — | The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority was under the duty to initiate a formal investigation procedure concerning a failure by Liechtenstein to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC, and by failing to do so, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has infringed the rights of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority was under the duty to initiate a formal investigation procedure concerning a failure by Liechtenstein to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC, and by failing to do so, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has infringed the rights of the applicant.

---
#### § 229.40 Effect of merger transaction.

For purposes of this subpart, two or more banks that have engaged in a merger transaction may be considered to be separate banks for a period of one year following the consummation of the merger transaction.

[82 FR 27584, June 15, 2017]
<PAGE>

                            LETTERHEAD OF SEALY, INC.
                                   Sealy Drive
                               One Office Parkway
                                Trinity, NC 27370



                                 January 1, 2000


Mr. Stephen A. Walker
Chief Executive Officer
Mattress Discounters
9822 Fallard Ct.
Upper Marlboro, MD 10772

Dear Steve:

         This letter is to confirm our mutual understanding effective August 6,
1999 that our letter agreement, dated March 17, 1997, as amended to date (the
"Mattress Discounters Agreement"), has been extended for two additional one-year
periods: Year 6, consisting of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003; and Year 7,
consisting of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. These two periods shall be
added to Section 1 of the Mattress Discounters Agreement.


                                  Sincerely,
                                  SEALY, INC.


                                      By: /s/ Ron L. Jones
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Ron L. Jones
                                          Title: Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                 Officer


Agreed and Accepted:
MATTRESS DISCOUNTERS CORPORATION



By: /s/ James B. Hirshorn
    -------------------------------
    Name: James B. Hirshorn
    Title:  Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-QSB of Dynatem, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ending November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Dated: January 11, 2005



/s/ MICHAEL HORANMichael HoranChief Executive Officer/S/ BELEN RAMOSBelen RamosChief Financial Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00059

- CV

J ASHON P AGE AND M ICHEAL P AGE

, Appellants

V

.

C ERBERUS SFR H OLDINGS

, L.P.,

Appellee §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2018

- 008835

- 1)

Au gust 29, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

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

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

156) IV-C-123 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 156 of 232 
P.2 

^

lDSr\< 

' — \ 

i55B. 

\ P«Olfc° 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

r/ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

2 2 JUL 1988 

Dr. Terry Yosie 

Vice President 

Health and Environment 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Terry: 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently 

evaluating information on vehicle refueling emission control techniques. As 

part of this information gathering, EPA has contracted (Contract No. 68-02-3060) 

with Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. to gather cost data related to Stage I I 

vapor recovery Installations 1n St. Louis. Gathering cost information regarding 

Stage I I in St. Louis 1s Important, since this is the latest area to install 

Stage I I equipment. 

I t is our understanding that API is currently conducting a parallel Stage I I 

cost study. Survey forms were sent to those API member companies 1n the St. Louis 

area subject to the vapor recovery regulation, and information was requested 

regarding equipment and Installation costs. In order to compare the API cost 

data to a Stage I I cost model used by EPA, we would like to obtain the data 

collected through your survey. Since information as detailed as possible 1s 

needed for this purpose, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the raw cost 

data submitted by your member companies in the St. Louis area. If you feel 11 1s 

necessary to allay confidentiality concerns, Individual service station names and 

locations may be deleted. 

Given the controversy surrounding the refueling control Issue, I am sure 

you can understand our Interest 1n all potentially useful data. If you should 

have any questions concerning the above request, please contact me at (919) 

541-5642, or Stephen Shedd at (919) 541-5597. Thanks for any assistance you can 

provide. 

Sincerely, 

^Jim Weigold 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

cc: Bob Norton, PES 

Stephen Shedd, OAQPS/ESD 
P.3 

V 

-% 

-Ha 

'*>*.'<• 

oA 

<? 

•*>. '4*0. 

/ 

>* & 

J 7 ^

 V'<4 

^ 

• '•**. -0. "-Or 

%, 

-v
# C_2023163EN.01001401.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/14

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 May 2023

(2023/C 163/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1014 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 147,80 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4499 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87378 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,2365 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9828 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,6895 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,401 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 372,48 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5770 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9280 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 21,4745 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6379 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4860 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6434 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7488 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4600 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 451,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,2345 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6112 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 156,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8869 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,830 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,172 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,4960 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,7073 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,0010 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1014

JPY

Japanese yen

147,80

DKK

Danish krone

7,4499

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87378

SEK

Swedish krona

11,2365

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9828

ISK

Iceland króna

150,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,6895

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,401

HUF

Hungarian forint

372,48

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5770

RON

Romanian leu

4,9280

TRY

Turkish lira

21,4745

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6379

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4860

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6434

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7488

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4600

KRW

South Korean won

1 451,90

ZAR

South African rand

20,2345

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6112

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 156,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8869

PHP

Philippine peso

60,830

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,172

BRL

Brazilian real

5,4960

MXN

Mexican peso

19,7073

INR

Indian rupee

90,0010

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrow Resources
Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on September
30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, Principal Accounting 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 my 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.




/s/ Peter
Frugone


Peter
Frugone




Date:
November 17, 2010.