alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 145.1 Applicability.

This part describes how to obtain a repair station certificate. This part also contains the rules a certificated repair station must follow related to its performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which part 43 applies. It also applies to any person who holds, or is required to hold, a repair station certificate issued under this part.
§ 1209.301 Authority. ( a ) The Act of August 28, 1958 (50 U.S.C. 1431-35) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), empowers the President to authorize departments and agencies exercising functions in connection with the national defense to enter into contracts or into amendments or modifications of contracts and to make advance payments, without regard to other provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts, whenever the President deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.
( b ) Executive Order No. 10789, dated November 14, 1958 (23 FR 8897), authorizes the Administrator, NASA, to exercise the authority conferred by the Act and to prescribe regulations for the carrying out of such authority.
( c ) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), part 50, April 1, 1985, and NASA/FAR Supplement 84-2, part 18-50, October 19, 1984, establishes standards and procedures for the disposition of requests for extraordinary contractual adjustments by NASA contractors.
### NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00 071

- CR


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

VICTOR HAMILTON , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides , Perkes, and Longoria Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Victor Hamilton
, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 361st

District Court of Brazos County, Texas, in cause number 09

- 02517

- CRF

- 361

. 1

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2005). On
March 21, 2013, t h is appeal was abated for purposes of determining whether appellant is2 entitle d to appointed counsel on appeal. The trial court found that the appellant is not
indigent and, thus, is not entitled to court

- appointed counsel or a free appellate record.
Appellant has filed an appeal from the trial court’s denial of indigence. The
appellate record relevant to appellant’s indigenc e claim was provided to appellant on
September 17, 2013.
This cause is before the Court on appellant’s second motion for extension of time

to file the brief. This Court has previously granted appellan t an extension until November
14, 2013, for the filing of appellant’s brief. Appellant is requesting an additional 90 days

to file his brief.
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART appellant's second motion for

extension of time. This motion is GRAN TED insofar as the Court will extend appellant's

deadline to file his brief until January 2 1 , 201 4 . This motion is DENIED insofar as the

Court will not allow an extension until February 12, 2014

. Appellant is hereby
ORDERED to file the appellate brief wi th this Court on or before January 21, 2014

. NO

FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED IN THIS MATTER

. If appellant fails to
file the brief within the foregoing specified period of time, the Court will consider the
appeal without briefs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3( C ), 38.8(b)(4).

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 20th day of December , 2013

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra,

 Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

y0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

144039 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144039 

 COA: 305746 

Alpena CC: 10-003320-FC 

LORI ANTONETTE GROTTO, a/k/a 

LORI ANTONETTE KOTWICKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 10.3

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Allan L. Shaw, the Chief Financial Officer of Serono S.A. (the
"Company"), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form
20-F for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Allan L. Shaw
                                   ------------------
                                   Allan L. Shaw
                                   Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 17, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Serono S.A. and will be retained by Serono S.A. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund II (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|November 12, 2004         
|                          
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|November 12, 2004
#### Arthur Daughtry, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed May 6,1913.

1. An extra judicial confession is admissible upon proof that the brand of an animal had been changed under circumstances indicating a fradulent intent.

2. Upon a trial for altering the brand of an animal, it is error to charge the conviction may fellow proof of altering either mark or brand.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court of DeSoto County.

Judgment reversed.

-7. *W. Burton*and *W. D. Bell,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F. West,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*for the State.

Cockrell, J.

Arthur Daughtry was convicted under an indictment charging him with fraudulently altering the brand of an animal not his own.

An extra judicial confession was admitted over the objection that the *corpus delicti*had not been proven. The ruling was proper. There was evidence that the brand had been changed under circumstances indicating a *416fradulen't intent, and we do not consider the rule should he extended so as to require all the elements of the crime, including the personal participation of the accused, before the confession may be received. See 3 Wigmore’s Evidence, Sec. 2072.

There is probably as much evidence tending to prove that the marks were changed as that the brand was changed, and the court therefore erred in charging the jury that if either was established, they might convict.

The fraudulent changing or altering the marks of an animal is a different felony, prescribed by Chapter 5663, Laws of 1907, with a different penalty, from the kindred felony of changing the brand, in the older act originally enacted in 1899, and now Section 3334 of the General Statutes of 1906.

The jurgment is reversed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
#### § 619.9235 Outside director.

A member of a board of directors selected or appointed by the board, who is not a director, officer, employee, agent, or stockholder of any Farm Credit System institution.

[71 FR 5764, Feb. 2, 2006]
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Zaxis International Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, CEO and CFO ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo HeidenCEO and CFODated: August 9, 2010

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Avalon Holdings Corporation (the registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (a) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (a) 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Ronald E. Klingle  
|Ronald E. Klingle      
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 19, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                      Independent Auditors' Review Report
                      -----------------------------------

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
The Centris Group, Inc.:

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of The Centris Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999, and the related condensed
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the quarters and
nine-month periods ended September 30, 1999 and 1998, and condensed consolidated
statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 1999 and
1998. These condensed consolidated financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for
them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of The Centris Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated income
statement, statements of stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated
March 26, 1999, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1998, is
fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance
sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Los Angeles, California
November 8, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,221,121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,565,116
<PP&E>                                         177,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,618,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,432
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,510,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,618,171
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               591,386
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  558,788
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,357
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02



</TABLE>
#### BACKUS *v.*TRUMBULL MOTOR CAR CO.

Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Judgment.

There being no final judgment in *the case,*tbe writ of error must be dismissed.

Error to Wayne; Hally, J.

Submitted June 14,1916.

(Docket No. 89.)

Decided December 22, 1916.

Assumpsit by Henry N. Backus and others against the Trumbull Motor Car Company for breach of contract. A plea in abatement was ordered stricken from the files. Defendent brings error.

Dismissed.

*Moore & Moore,*for appellant.

*Albert McClatchey,*for appellees.

Moore, J.

This case has been in this court before. It is reported in *Trumbull Motor Car Co.*v. *Circuit Judge,*189 Mich. 554 (155 N. W. 532). A reference to the opinion there rendered will make a long statement of facts unnecessary. After the opinion referred to was handed down, a plea in abatement was filed, and later upon motion was stricken from the files. No final judgment was ever entered. The case is brought here by writ of error.

We think, there being no final judgment in the case, the writ of error must be dismissed. See *Brady*v. *Railroad Co.,*73 Mich. 457 (41 N. W. 503), and *Steel*v. *Circuit Judge,*133 Mich. 695 (95 N. W. 993).

The writ of error is dismissed, with costs to appellee.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Ostrander, Bird, Steere, Brooke, and Person, JJ., concurred.
# C_2006121EN.01001401.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/14

---

Action brought on 24 February 2006 — Armando Álvarez v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-78/06)

(2006/C 121/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Armando Álvarez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Garayar and A. García Castillo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present action for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present action for annulment admissible;

| — | Annul Decision C(2005) 4634 Final of 30 November 2005, in Case COMP/F/38.354 in so far as it imputes liability to Armando Álvarez, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision C(2005) 4634 Final of 30 November 2005, in Case COMP/F/38.354 in so far as it imputes liability to Armando Álvarez, S.A.;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all costs incurred by Armando Álvarez, S.A. in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all costs incurred by Armando Álvarez, S.A. in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks annulment of Commission C(2005) 4634 Final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — industrial bags. In the contested decision, the Commission states that the applicant, together with other companies, infringed Article 81 EC by participating, in the period 1991-2002, in agreements and concerted practices in the industrial plastic bag sector in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain and France. In respect of these infringements, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant jointly and severally with Plásticos Españoles, S.A.

In support of its claim, the applicant alleges that the Commission wrongly assessed the facts and infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence and the claimant's rights of defence.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         302,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,260,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,730,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,507,722
<PP&E>                                       2,827,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 696,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,141,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,036,594
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           330
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,819,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,141,409
<SALES>                                      9,268,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,268,336
<CGS>                                        4,616,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,699,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (32,177)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             257,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                726,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                   290,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            436,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   436,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>