alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNDA v CITIBANK OF MARYLAND, N.A.

Case No. 90-044AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

April 8, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Raymond Unda, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, SHAPIRO, UNGARO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Raymond Unda, received a pre-approved Choice credit card application from appellee. He completed same and requested that a joint card be issued for himself and his friend, Ted Danek. The cards were issued, one in each name.

In July, 1987, Unda decided he no longer wanted the joint card with *45Danek. He called Choice and requested that the account be cancelled. Choice mailed Unda a form which he signed and returned. He believed the account closed.

In September, 1987, Citibank mailed Unda a new Choice card. Unda called the Choice customer service office, explained his situation and again requested the account be closed. He was advised that it was necessary for Danek to sign the cancellation form. Unda explained that Danek no longer lived with him and he had no knowledge where he might be. Choice mailed Unda a second cancellation form which Unda signed and returned.

While this was going on, Danek continued to charge items for which Unda was receiving statements. The balance owed on the account in July, 1987, when the first notice of cancellation was mailed to Choice was $1,572.51.

After trial the court found that Unda was jointly and severally liable with Danek for all Danek’s charges. Judgment was entered against Unda for the sum of $3,626.22. This appeal ensued.

Appellant, Unda, did everything possible to terminate his credit card agreement with Choice but the company refused to allow him to do so. While there is no question but that Unda would be liable for all charges incurred by both Unda and Danek up until the time Unda notified Choice to close the account, it is difficult to understand why Choice would choose to ignore Unda and keep the account open even after a request to close the account was made by the principal card holder.

Unda took all reasonable action to close this account. Choice should be estopped from asking the court to require Unda to pay for charges made by Danek after Unda requested cancellation of the account.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment entered by the lower court is reversed, in part. This matter is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and enter one in favor of Choice in the amount of $1,571.51 plus proper interest and costs.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.
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 Quarterly Report of Greens Worldwide Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Thomas Kidd, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Thomas Kidd                                 
|R. Thomas Kidd                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|November 30, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of UC HUB
GROUP, INC. for the quarter ending January 31, 2007, I, Larry Wilcox, Chief
Executive Officer of UC HUB GROUP, INC., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending October 31,
      2005, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

3.    The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter ending October 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of UC HUB
      GROUP, INC.

Dated:  March 19, 2007.

                                /s/  Larry Wilcox
                                -------------------------------------
                                Larry Wilcox, Chief Executive Officer
                                of UC HUB GROUP, INC.
§ 100.560 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual with handicaps an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with handicaps.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used to communicate with persons with impaired hearing.
( b ) The agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall provide signage at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 100.560 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with handicaps receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
[53 FR 25884, 25885, July 8, 1988. Redesignated at 59 FR 37159, July 21, 1994, and amended at 60 FR 32587, June 23, 1995]
1

FILED

April 16, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JEFFREY MORGAN, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9802-CV-00079

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

)

v. ) JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

)

)

)

THOMAS L. DRISKILL, ) 

) HONORABLE BEN W. HOOPER, II,

Defendant-Appellant. ) JUDGE

For Appellant For Appellee

THOMAS L. DRISKILL JEFFREY L. JONES

Pro Se STEVEN DOUGLAS DRINNON

Knoxville, Tennessee Rainwater & Jones

 Dandridge, Tennessee

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.
1

Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges

2

This is an unlawful detainer action. Jeffrey Morgan

filed a civil warrant against Thomas L. Driskill in the Jefferson

County General Sessions Court seeking to recover a mobile home

and lot in Strawberry Plains. Judgment restoring the plaintiff

to possession was entered in that court. On appeal by Driskill

to the Jefferson County Circuit Court, that Court, based “upon

the record and testimony in open Court,” entered a judgment that 

upholds the order of the General Sessions

Court and does hereby dismiss this Appeal and

grants possession to the Plaintiff.

(Emphasis added).

On this appeal, the appellant, Thomas L. Driskill,

challenges the propriety of the trial court’s judgment; however,

he has not filed a record of the evidence heard below. In the

absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must

assume that “had [a record] been preserved, [it] would have

contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s

factual findings” in support of its judgment. Sherrod v. Wix,

849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn.App. 1992). See also McDonald v. Ohoh,

772 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.App. 1989); Irvin v. City of

Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn.App. 1987); Gotten v.

Gotten, 748 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.App. 1988).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to

the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals.1
participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or

modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum

opinion when a formal opinion would have no

precedential value. When a case is decided by

memorandum opinion it shall be designated ‘MEMORANDUM

OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be

cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent

unrelated case.

3

Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant. This case is

remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the lower court’s

judgment and for the collection of costs assessed there, all

pursuant to applicable law.

__________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

CONCUR:

________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# The Sierra Range

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  The Sierra Range 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  Harper, Charley, 1922-2007United States. National Park Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 
                    -           Description        
                    -  artwork by Charley Harper 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  Yosemite National Park (Calif.)Sequoia National Park (Calif.)Kings Canyon National Park (Calif.)Sierra Nevada (Calif. and Nev.) 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  California 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  1100 × 74 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  023261387.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
#### Lisa Mintz, Respondent, v Steven G. Mintz, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 889]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassaü' County (Kohn, J.), entered August 5, 1998, which (1) referred his motion for downward modification of his pendente lite support and maintenance obligations to the trial court for determination, and (2) granted the plaintiff wife’s cross motion for an additional interim attorney’s fee in the amount of $10,000.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as referred the defendant’s motion for downward modification of his pendente lite support and maintenance obligations to the trial court is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Two months after the Supreme Court issued a pendente lite order fixing the defendant’s temporary support and maintenance obligations, he moved for downward modification of those *440amounts upon the ground that there had been a substantial change in his circumstances. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff disputed the defendant’s claim that his financial condition had deteriorated since the issuance of the pendente lite order. Faced with conflicting claims from the parties, the Supreme Court referred the defendant’s motion to the trial court for determination.

The defendant may not appeal, as of right, from the portion of the order which referred his motion to the trial court for determination, since it merely deferred resolution of his motion until trial, where the parties’ financial circumstances may be fully explored without the additional delay of an interim hearing. Under these circumstances, the challenged ruling does not affect a substantial right (see, CPLR 5701 [a]; see *also, Marine Midland Bank v Rashid,*259 AD2d 739; *Walis v Walis,*192 AD2d 598, 600). Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal from that portion of the order is dismissed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s application for an additional interim attorney’s fee was supported by sufficient documentation to establish that such an award was necessary to enable her to properly prosecute this action *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). Moreover, considering the respective financial circumstances of the parties, and the issues involved in this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the wife an additional interim attorney’s fee *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879; *Appold v Savaglio,*249 AD2d 347; *Piali v Piali,*247 AD2d 455). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132864 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132864 

 COA: 264960 

Calhoun CC: 05-000291-FH 

DARREN MICHAEL YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0416 

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. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 2, 2023

NO. 03-21-00418-CV

Eric Handy, Sr., Appellant

v.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 2, 2023. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

May 7, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Volvo Meeting with EPA Regarding Proposal for 2017-2025 Light-Duty (LD) 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards

FROM: Robin Moran, Senior Policy Advisor

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents a meeting held on February 8, 2012 between representatives of Volvo and 

EPA. The meeting attendees included the following:

Volvo: Stefan Jacoby, Anders Karrberg, Katherine Yehl

EPA: Margo Oge, Chet France, Ed Nam, Robin Moran, 

Volvo discussed their overall support for the national program and a midterm evaluation, and 

their views on various flexibilities in the program, including electrification incentives, off-cycle 

credits, and air conditioning credits.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of M Line Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:  May 16, 2011
/s/ Jitu BankerBy:  Jitu BankerIts:  Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to M Line Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by M Line Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 91.415 Changes to aircraft inspection programs. ( a ) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions to an approved aircraft inspection program under § 91.409(f)(4) or § 91.1109 are necessary for the continued adequacy of the program, the owner or operator must, after notification by the Administrator, make any changes in the program found to be necessary by the Administrator.
( b ) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator to reconsider the notice to make any changes in a program in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The petition must be filed with the Executive Director, Flight Standards Service within 30 days after the certificate holder or fractional ownership program manager receives the notice.
( d ) Except in the case of an emergency requiring immediate action in the interest of safety, the filing of the petition stays the notice pending a decision by the Administrator.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34311, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-280, 68 FR 54560, Sept. 17, 2003; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 91-350, 83 FR 9171, Mar. 5, 2018]
#### § 26.5 Applicability table.

Table 1 of this section provides an overview of the applicability of this part. It provides guidance in identifying what sections apply to various types of entities. The specific applicability of each subpart and section is specified in the regulatory text.

Table 1—Applicability of Part 26 Rules

| | Applicable sections | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Subpart B EAPAS/FTS | Subpart C widespread fatigue damage | Subpart D fuel tank flammability | Subpart E damage tolerance data |
| Effective date of rule | December 10, 2007 | January 14, 2011 | December 26, 2008 | January 11, 2008 |
| Existing1 TC Holders | 26.11 | 26.21 | 26.33 | 26.43, 26.45, 26.49 |
| Pending1 TC Applicants | 26.11 | 26.21 | 26.37 | 26.43, 26.45 |
| Future2 TC applicants | N/A | N/A | N/A | 26.43 |
| Existing1 STC Holders | N/A | 26.21 | 26.35 | 26.47, 26.49 |
| Pending1 STC/ATC applicants | 26.11 | 26.21 | 26.35 | 26.45, 26.47, 26.49 |
| Future2 STC/ATC applicants | 26.11 | 26.21 | 26.35 | 26.45, 26.47, 26.49 |
| Manufacturers | N/A | N/A | 26.39 | N/A |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 As of the effective date of the identified rule. | | | | |
| 2 Application made after the effective date of the identified rule. | | | | |

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24281, [75 FR 69782](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/75-FR-69782), Nov. 15, 2010]
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 399.120 Duration of certificates in limited-entry markets.

All certificate authority that the Department grants to U.S. air carriers in carrier selection proceedings will be awarded in the form of experimental certificates of five years' duration pursuant to49 U.S.C. 41102 and 41110. This provision does not alter or amend permanent certificates issued prior to January 1, 1985.

[Doc. No. 43403, 51 FR 43188, Dec. 1, 1986, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15948, Apr. 16, 2019]
#### § 91.1433 CAMP: Maintenance and preventive maintenance training program.

Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP or a person performing maintenance or preventive maintenance functions for it must have a training program to ensure that each person (including inspection personnel) who determines the adequacy of work done is fully informed about procedures and techniques and new equipment in use and is competent to perform that person's duties.