alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v MARTINEZ

Case No. 84-307 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

November 17, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jim Smith, Attorney General, for appellant.

Alan R. Soven for appellee.

Before SALMON, KAYE, GREENBAUM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The issue in the case is whether the lower Court erred in granting a motion to suppress based on the failure of the State to adequately apprise the Appellee of his rights pursuant to Section 316.1932, Fla. Stat.

*143Fla. Stat. 316.1932, provides:

> “Such person shall be told that his failure to submit to such a breath test or urine test, or both tests, will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of six months, for a first refusal, or for a period of one year if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests.”

It is undisputed that the arresting officer told the Appellee such information. There is no requirement under the statute that the Appellee be informed of his right to appeal or be informed of the suspension procedure in the event he refuses to take the test. *State v. Gunn,*408 So.2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

We need not consider the other issues raised on appeal.

The Court finds that the lower Court erred in granting the motion to suppress and remands this cause to the lower Court for action consistent with this ruling.

Reversed and remanded.
#### In the Matter of Jacob Shatter, Appellant, against Robert Moses, as Park Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

Submitted January 4, 1937;

decided January 12, 1937.

*501
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
§ 1471.345 What happens if I fail to disclose information required under § 1471.335? If we later determine that you failed to disclose information under § 1471.335 that you knew at the time you entered into the covered transaction, we may— ( a ) Terminate the transaction for material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the transaction; or
( b ) Pursue any other available remedies, including suspension and debarment.
[No. 27742-5-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Errol Bobby Mayers, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-01507-1, Marywave Van Deren, J., entered July 30, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
#### C. H. Davis, et al., Appellants, v. M. C. Davis, et al., as County Commissioners of Manatee County, Appellees.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the County of Manatee.

Appeal dismissed on praecipe of counsel for Appellant.

Sparkman & Cartel’, and C. T. Curry, for Appellants;

C. C. Whitaker, for Appellees.
#### § 1611.10 Disclosure of record to person other than the individual to whom it pertains.

The Commission shall not disclose any record which is contained in a system of records it maintains, by any means of communication to any person or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure is authorized by one or more provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                       155
<INVENTORY>                                      5,070
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,509
<PP&E>                                           2,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,788
<SALES>                                         38,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,914
<CGS>                                           34,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     33
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 33
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        33
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
§ 15.103 May an agent or legal representative file an FTCA administrative claim on behalf of a claimant? ( a ) An agent or legal representative may file a claim on behalf of a claimant.
( b ) Representative's fees are limited to not more than 20 percent of the amount paid for a claim settled in an administrative claim, and to not more than 25 percent of a judgment or settlement award after litigation is initiated. 28 U.S.C. 2678.
( c ) If a representative is dismissed from representing a claimant before the claim is resolved, the representative may not place a lien on the claimant's recoveries under the claim.
( d ) Any purported representative of a minor must provide documentation that he or she is the legal agent of that minor.
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 of Tower Financial
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard R. Sawyer, 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:
  (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/
Richard R. Sawyer
 Richard
R. Sawyer
 Chief
Financial Officer
 January 29, 2010
§ 1919.4 Action upon application. ( a ) Upon receipt of an application for accreditation, the Assistant Secretary shall approve or deny the application. The Assistant Secretary may conduct an investigation, which may include a hearing, prior to approving or denying an application. To the extent he deems appropriate, the Assistant Secretary may provide an opportunity to other interested persons to present data and views on the application prior to approval or denial.
( b ) Any application which fails to present the information required by the prescribed form may be returned to the applicant with a notation of deficiencies and without prejudice to submission of a new or revised application.
( c ) If the application is approved, notice of approval shall be mailed to the applicant. If the application is denied, notice of such denial shall be mailed to the applicant and such denial shall be without prejudice to any subsequent application except where such action is deemed to be in the public interest. In the event an application is denied with prejudice, the provisions of § 1919.9 shall be applicable.
( d ) A copy of the notice of accreditation shall be kept on file by applicant at the applicant's place of business.
January 4, 2016

VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX

Rhea Jones

Geographic Strategies Group Leader

Air Quality Policy Divis i on

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Scott Mathias

Associate Director

Air Quality Policy Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

RE : Air Dispersion Modeling of Sulfur Dioxide Pollution from Maryland’s

H.A. Wagner, C.P. Crane and Brandon Shores Coal Plants

Dear Ms. Jones and Mr. Mathias :

I write to provide you with a copy of air dispersion modeling conducted by

Wingra Engineering, S.C. on behalf of the Sierra Club demonstrating that sulfur dioxide

(“SO 2 ”) emissions from the H.A. Wagner, C.P. Crane

, and Brandon Shores facilities in

Maryland ha ve caused downwind SO 2 ambient air concentrations to exceed the 75 parts

per billion (or 196.2 micrograms per cubic meter) National Ambient Air Q uality Standard

(“NAAQS”)

. T he modeling shows 99 th percentile concentrations to be as high as 267.7

micrograms per cubic meter in the areas impacted by these plants based on actual,

historical emissions of sulfur dioxide

. The Sierra Club therefore urges EPA to

recommend a designation of nonattainment for the area surrounding these facilities this

month and, should the Maryland Department of the Environment fail to finalize unit

specific emission limits sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS

in the Baltimore area prior to the deadline for EPA’s final designation s in July, the Sierra

Club urges EPA to promulgate a final nonattainment designation.

Enclosed, please find the r esults of the modeling analysis, along with two copies

of the corresponding modeling input and ou tput files on CD

. The modeling analysis was

provided to the Maryland Department of the Environment via letter dated June 18, 2015,

a copy of which is also included. W e urge EPA to consider this informa tion as it

undertakes area designations in Maryland for the 2010 revised primary SO 2 NAAQS

. This letter and enclosures are being copied to both EPA Region 3 and the MarylandM s. Rhea Jones & M r

. Scott Mathias

January 4, 2016

Page 2

Department of the Environment

. In the meantime, p lease let me know if I can provide

any additional information.

Thank you for your attention to and consideration of this matter

, and please do not

hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss further

.

Sincerely,

Josh Berman

Staff Attorney

Sierra Club Env. Law Program

50 F St. NW, 8 th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: (202) 650

- 6062

Email: Josh.Berman@sierraclub.org

cc (via U.S. mail with enclosures) :

Cristina Fernandez, EPA R3

Diana Es her, EPA R3

Tad Aburn , MDE
#### § 1905.29 Transmission of record.

If exceptions are filed, the hearing examiner shall transmit the record of the proceeding to the Assistant Secretary for review. The record shall include: The application, any request for hearing thereon, motions and requests filed in written form, rulings thereon, the transcript of the testimony taken at the hearing, together with the exhibits admitted in evidence, any documents or papers filed in connection with prehearing conferences, such proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, rules or orders, and supporting reasons, as may have been filed, the hearing examiner's decision, and such exceptions, statements of objections, and briefs in support thereof, as may have been filed in the proceeding.
§ 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency. ( a ) *Operations that require a medical certificate.* Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person: ( 1 ) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or
( 2 ) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.
( b ) *Operations that do not require a medical certificate.* For operations provided for in § 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.
( c ) *Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S. driver's license.* For operations provided for in § 61.23(c), a person must meet the provisions of— ( 1 ) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter and does not hold a U.S. driver's license.
( 2 ) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a U.S. driver's license.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44866, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61-124, 74 FR 42550, Aug. 21, 2009]
# short-term cont gages

# Table 3
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11930]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER00-1981-000 and ER00-1982-000]


Panda Gila River, L.P. and Panda Oneta Power, L.P.; Notice of 
issuance of Order

May 8, 2000.
    Panda Gila River, L.P. (Panda Gila) and Panda Oneta Power, L.P. 
(Panda Oneta) submitted for filing rate schedules under which Panda 
Gila and Panda Oneta will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as marketers. Panda Gila and Panda Oneta also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Panda Gila and 
Panda Oneta requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 
18 CFR Part 34 of all issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability by Panda Gila or Panda Oneta.
    On May 3, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Panda Gila or Panda Oneta should file a 
motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Panda Gila and 
Panda Oneta are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations 
or liabilities as a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in 
respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance 
or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes 
of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Panda Gila's or Panda Oneta's issuances of 
securities or assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 2, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11930 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 1471.200 What is a covered transaction? A covered transaction is a nonprocurement or procurement transaction that is subject to the prohibitions of this part. It may be a transaction at— ( a ) The primary tier, between a Federal agency and a person (see appendix to this part); or
( b ) A lower tier, between a participant in a covered transaction and another person.
ex106.htm


    Exhibit
10.6

     

     

     

    AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    This
amendment to Executive Employment Agreement is executed this date November 10,
2009 by and between Gen2Media Corporation (“Company”) and Micheal Morgan
(“Employee”).

    


     

    
      	
              1.  

            	
              This
      agreement amends the Executive Employment Agreement between the parties
      dated August 14, 2009
(“Agreement”).

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              The
      Agreement is hereby amended to provide for a modification in the incentive
      based compensation related to stock options based on Mr. Morgan’s
      appointment to the Board of
Directors.

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              3.  

            	
              The
      Options originally granted to Mr. Morgan shall be modified as
      follows:  1,000,000 Stock Options granted at $0.01 shall be
      converted to grant of restricted shares.  The 2,000,000
      remaining Stock Options shall be reset to a strike price of
      $0.30.  Said Options shall continue to vest over the life of the
      initial contract.  Such Shares and Options shall remain
      restricted for a period of two years from the date of this
      amendment.

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              4.  

            	
              Other
      than specifically amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of the
      Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

            


    

     

    


     

    Gen2Media
Corporation:                                                                           Employee:

     

    


     

    


     

    _________________________                                                      __________________________

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              Mark
      Argenti, Chairman and CEO

            	
              Micheal
      Morgan, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Technology
    Officer
#### Bendernagle *vs.*Cocks.

ALBANY,

Oct. 1838.

A party in interest, though not a party to the record who prosecutes a suit in the name of another, is liable for costs if he fail in a recovery; but if he succeed and the defendant sues out a writ of error and the judgment is reversed, he is not liable for the costs of the reversal.

This was a motion that William S. Sears *pay the cost of the reversal of a judgment*obtained by Cocks against Bendernagle in the New-York common pleas, which was removed by Bendernagle into this court by Writ of error. The motion was founded upon the allegation that Sears was the *real*plaintiff in the suit in the C. P. and *prosecuted it for his own benefit,*although it was brought on a demand claimed to be due to Cocks ; and that the writ of error had been defended by him. Sears denied that he was the beneficial owner of the demand prosecuted in the C. P. and alleged that both in the C. P. and in this court, he had acted *152merely as the *attorney*of Cocks. The evidence of the party *in interest*was conflicting.

By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

Assuming that Sears was the *owner*of the demand prosecuted in the common pleas, he *succeeded*in recovering a judgment in that court; had he failed, he would have been liable in that court to the defendant’s costs. In this court, instead of *prosecuting*he *defended,*and we have repeatedly held that a party *defending*a suit in the name of another, though himself the party in interest, is not liable to the costs of the action if the defence prove unsuccessful. We cannot regard the writ of error as such a continuation of the suit below as to place the defendant in error in the light of a party *prosecuting*his demand. He is not a volunteer in this court, but is called here by his adversary—the same as a defendant in an ordinary suit. There may be a necessity for bringing the writ .of error in consequence of the institution of the suit below ; but so it may be said in all cases, that there is a necessity for bringing a suit against the defendant because he neglected or refused to pay the debt claimed by the plaintiff, and therefore the party in interest who defends the suit, though not a party to the record, should pay the costs of the suit. A writ of error is not a continuation of the suit below, because it may be sued out by a new attorney without obtaining a rule for a change of attorney. 7 T. R. 337. 8 Johns. R. 287.

Motion denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of American International Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly
Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010.






The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date:  August 16, 2010


Sherry Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry Couturier
§ 1905.2 Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context clearly requires otherwise— ( a ) *Act* means the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
( b ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.
( c ) *Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
( d ) *Person* means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, and organized group of individuals, or an agency, authority, or instrumentality of the United States or of a State.
( e ) *Party* means a person admitted to participate in a hearing conducted in accordance with subpart C of this part. An applicant for relief and any affected employee shall be entitled to be named parties. The Department of Labor, represented by the Office of the Solicitor, shall be deemed to be a party without the necessity of being named.
( f ) *Affected employee* means an employee who would be affected by the grant or denial of a variance, limitation, variation, tolerance, or exemption, or any one of his authorized representatives, such as his collective bargaining agent.