alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WRC PROPERTIES, INC. v TED’S NEWS, INC., et al.

Case No. 90-253 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

June 11, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Laurel M. Isicoff, Esquire, for appellant.

Eric P. Littman, Esquire, for appellees.

Before ESQUIROZ, ROBINSON, FIERRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from the Court’s award of attorney fees under section 57.105(2), Florida Statutes, in a landlord tenant eviction.

The issue for determination is whether an award of attorneys’ fees under Section 57.105(2), Florida Statutes, applies to a lease predating its enactment, which is renewed pursuant to an option in the lease.

“Renewal” of the lease extended beyond the effective date of the *61statute. The lease had a provision entitling the landlord, but not the tenant, to recover attorneys’ fees. Appellees argue that Section 57.105(2) should apply to this lease because the lease was renewed after the effective date of the statute.

The law in Florida is clear that the exercise of the renewal option in a lease does not create a new contract, but merely extends the existing one. *Kornblum v Henry E. Mangels Company,*167 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). *See Taylor v Rosman,*312 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The statute clearly provides that it “shall apply to contracts *entered into*on said date (October 1, 1988) or thereafter.” Section 57.105(2), Florida Statute.

The Appellees also argue that the appeal is moot because Appellant voluntarily paid the attorney’s fee award. In support of their argument, Appellees attach several letters to their brief. The First District held in *Thornber v City of Fort Walton Beach,*534 So.2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), “That an appellate court may not consider matters outside the record is so elemental there is no excuse for an attorney to bring such matters before the court.” 534 So.2d at 755. The Fourth District held in *Great American Insurance Co. v Stolte, Inc.,*491 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) that absent a stay of execution or a condition that effectively constitutes such a stay, payment or satisfaction of a judgment is involuntary, and does not moot the judgment payor’s appeal, provided the payment was not made by way of compromise or associated with an agreement not to pursue an appeal.”

The award of an attorney’s fee to Appellees is

REVERSED.

Appellant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is granted and REMANDED to the trial judge for determination of amount.
#### § 1607.1 Statement of purpose.

A. *Need for uniformity—Issuing agencies.* The Federal government's need for a uniform set of principles on the question of the use of tests and other selection procedures has long been recognized. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice jointly have adopted these uniform guidelines to meet that need, and to apply the same principles to the Federal Government as are applied to other employers.

B. *Purpose of guidelines.* These guidelines incorporate a single set of principles which are designed to assist employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting employment practices which discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. They are designed to provide a framework for determining the proper use of tests and other selection procedures. These guidelines do not require a user to conduct validity studies of selection procedures where no adverse impact results. However, all users are encouraged to use selection procedures which are valid, especially users operating under merit principles.

C. *Relation to prior guidelines.* These guidelines are based upon and supersede previously issued guidelines on employee selection procedures. These guidelines have been built upon court decisions, the previously issued guidelines of the agencies, and the practical experience of the agencies, as well as the standards of the psychological profession. These guidelines are intended to be consistent with existing law.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

                          MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Each of the undersigned officers of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the "Company")
hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

/s/ James R. Sulat
________________________________________
JAMES R. SULAT
President & Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

March 30, 2006


/s/ Joseph M. Donabauer
________________________________________
JOSEPH M. DONABAUER
Vice President  & Controller
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)

March 30, 2006

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.
  and will be retained by Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the
  Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This written
  statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by
  reference into any filing of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities
  Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any
  general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO, President and
Chairman 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-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2007.

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

Date: May 14, 2007
Daniel Dror
Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
#### WINIFRED SMITH, Appellant, v. KARL M. SMITH, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

March 5, 1912.

The opinion of the Springfield Court.of Appeals in this case (151 Mo. App. 649) is adopted as the opinion of the court.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Eon. *James E.*Withrow, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*440
      *Pearce, Davis é Gurlee*for appellant.

*T. J. Rowe, Thos. J. Rowe, Jr.,*and *Henry Roioe*for respondent.

PER CURIAM.-

-The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, hut was thereafter transferred by it to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri 1909, p. 396; see, also,Sec. 3939, R. .S. 1909.]' In due time the cause was disposed of by. the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Cox of that court, as-will appear by reference to Smith v. Smith, 151 Mo. App. 649, 132 S. W. 312. Subsequently, the Supreme Court declared the said legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court, to be unconstitutional. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were *coram non judice.*

The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and considering the arguments, we are persuaded that the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly disposes of the controversy, and it is adopted as the opinion of this court. For the reasons given ,ln that opinion the judgment will he reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.
5:

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

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO and President
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 quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly 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: May 13, 2005
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer and President/s/ Gary D. Woerz
# EUR-Lex - 31999L0075 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999L0075

**Commission Directive 1999/75/EC of 22 July 1999 amending Commission Directive 95/45/EC laying down specific purity criteria concerning colours for use in foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 206 , 05/08/1999 P. 0019 - 0021 *

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 1999/75/EC

of 22 July 1999

amending Commission Directive 95/45/EC laying down specific purity criteria concerning colours for use in foodstuffs

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption(1), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 94/34/EC(2), and in particular Article 3(3)(a) thereof;

After consulting the Scientific Committee for Food,

(1) Whereas European Parliament and Council Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in foodstuffs(3), lists those substances which may be used as colours in foodstuffs;

(2) Whereas Commission Directive 95/45/EC of 26 July 1995 laying down specific purity criteria concerning colours for use in foodstuffs(4) sets out the purity criteria for the colours mentioned in Directive 94/36/EC;

(3) Whereas it is necessary, in the light of technical progress, to amend the purity criteria set out in Directive 95/45/EC for mixed carotenes (E160a (i)); whereas it is consequently necessary to adapt this Directive;

(4) Whereas it is appropriate to take into account the specifications and analytical techniques for colours as set out in the Codex Alimentarius and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA);

(5) Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs;

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 95/45/EC is hereby amended as follows:

In the Annex part B the chapter concerning E 160a (i) Mixed Carotenes is replaced by the text of the Annex to this Directive.

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 1.7.2000. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

1. This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1999.

For the Commission

Karel VAN MIERT

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 27.

(2) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 13.

(4) OJ L 226, 22.9.1995, p. 1.

ANNEX

"E 160a (i) mixed carotenes

1. PLANT CAROTENES

>TABLE>

2. ALGAL CAROTENES

>TABLE>"
#### § 1606.4 The bona fide occupational qualification exception.

The exception stated in section 703(e) of title VII, that national origin may be a bona fide occupational qualification, shall be strictly construed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D C 20460


## APR 13 2012 OfFICE OF AlA AND RADIATION The Honorable Max Baucus United States Senate 

### Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear SenatorBaucus: Thank you for your letter ofFebruary 17, 2012, to AdministratorJackson, co-signed by Senator Tester, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's upcoming actions on the Montana Regional Haze Federallrnplementation Plan (FIP). The Administrator asked that I respond on herbehalf. In your letter, you express concern about the possible economic impact from ourFIP. You also urge that ourdecisions on cost effectiveness ofcontrols for BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) be consistent with the costs required to comply with**health~based** standards, and you cite the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule costs as an example. We understand your concerns and note that the Regional Haze Rule requires that a numberof factors be weighed in decisions on BART controls, including cost, available technology, energy and non-air impacts, remaining useful life ofequipment and visibility improvement. As EPA Regional AdministratorJim Martin and his staffdiscussed in a briefing with your staffon March 20, the day the proposal was signed, we have endeavored to assess each ofthese factors to support ourpreliminary decisions for BART controls included in the proposed Montana Regional Haze FIP. I In the FIP we are proposing nitrogen oxides (NOx) BARTcontrols for two cementplants (Ash Grove Cement and Holcim) and NOx and sulfurdioxide (S02) BART controls fortwo power plant units (PPL Montana Colstrip Power Plant

- Units 1 and 2). We are proposing reasonable progress controls for NOx fortwo engines at the Devon Energy
- Blaine County Compressor Station. We estimate that our proposed FIP would reduce NOx emissions by about 6,600 tons peryear and 

### S02 emissions by about 8,600 tons peryear. The emission reductions will result in perceptible visibility improvements at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park and at Gates ofthe Mountains Wilderness Area. Per our consent decree with WildEarth Guardians, the EPA is obligated to finalize the Montana FIP by August 15, 2012. The proposed FrP will be open for public comment for 60 days following publication ofthis rule and EPA will also hold two public hearings during this time.
IThe FIP can be accessed online al http:www.epa.gov/region8/air

Internet Address (URL)' hlIpllwwwepa**go~** RecycledlRllcyclllble •Pnrtted wah Vegetable 0,1 Based Inks on 100% POSlconsumer Process Chlo';rte Free Recycled Pape,

### We will put your letterin the docket forthe proposed rule, and we welcome any additional information orcomments you may have onthe proposal. Ifyou have furtherquestions on the proposal, please contact me oryour staffmay call Josh Lewis inthe EPA's Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

inaMcCarthy Assistant Administrator
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS MARIANO MARTINEZ, 

No. 09-15170 Petitioner-Appellant,

D.C. No.

v. 2:08-cv-00785-JAT

CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of the  District of Arizona,

Arizona Department of Phoenix

Corrections, ORDER Respondent-Appellee. 

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed May 29, 2012

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Procter Hug, Jr., and

Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Opinion of the Supreme Court in Martinez

v. Ryan, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), inadequate

assistance of counsel during initial review collateral proceedings may now establish cause for a prisoner’s default of a

claim of ineffective assistance at trial. The district court properly applied the law as it stood at the time of Martinez’s petition. However, by qualifying Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.

722 (1991), the Supreme Court changed the law. Therefore,

the district court’s denial of Martinez’s petition for habeas

corpus on the basis that his claim was procedurally defaulted

is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

5871
#### HASSELL v. JONES.

(Decided December 19, 1916.)

Appeal from Conecuh Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. E. Gamble.

No counsel marked for appellant.

James F. Jones, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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 of Intelligent Living Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.



DATED:

October 20, 2010

/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran;

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-049] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license. 

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that CyberLearning Technologies, Inc., of Plymouth Meeting, PA, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 5,377,100, entitled “A METHOD OF ENCOURAGING ATTENTION BY CORRELATING VIDEO GAME DIFFICULTY WITH ATTENTION LEVEL,” and NASA Case No. LAR 15817-1, entitled “A METHOD OF ENCOURAGING PHYSIOLOGICAL SELF-REGULATION THROUGH MODULATION OF AN OPERATOR'S CONTROL INPUT TO A VIDEO GAME OR TRAINING SIMULATOR,” both of which are assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Langley Research Center. 

# DATES:

Responses to this notice must be received by July 11, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen M. Galus, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center, Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; telephone 757-864-3227; facsimile 757-864-9190. 

Dated: May 1, 2000. 

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-11983 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### § 1902.5 Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.

This part shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4201-4233), and any regulations pursuant thereto.
Exhibit 3.3
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                          ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                             FULL TILT SPORTS, INC.
                                -----------------

     FULL TILT SPORTS, INC., a Colorado corporation, having its principal office
at 212 North Wahsatch, Suite 205, Colorado Springs,  Colorado 80903 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Corporation")  hereby certifies to the Secretary of State of
Colorado that:

     FIRST:  The Corporation  desires to amend its Articles of  Incorporation in
accordance with Section 7-110-106 of the Colorado  Business  Corporation Act, as
currently in effect as hereinafter provided.

     SECOND:  The  provisions  set forth in these  Articles of  Amendment to the
Articles of  Incorporation  amend and supersede  the original  provisions of the
Articles of Incorporation.

     THIRD:  The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation are hereby amended
by striking in their entirety Article FIRST,  inclusive,  and by substituting in
lieu thereof the following:

         "FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is FTS Apparel, Inc."

     FOURTH:  The amendment was advised to the  stockholders by written informal
action, unanimously taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, pursuant
to and in accordance  Section  7-108-202  and Section  7-110-103 of the Colorado
Business Corporation Act on the 14th day of July, 2000.

     FIFTH: The amendment was adopted by formal action taken by the shareholders
of the  Corporation  at the annual  shareholders  meeting  on August  23,  2000,
pursuant to and in accordance  with Section  7-107-101 of the Colorado  Business
Corporation  Act,  and the  number of votes cast  approving  the  amendment  was
sufficient  for  approval  under the  provisions  of  Section  7-110-103  of the
Colorado Business Corporation Act.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned,  the President,  has executed these
Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation  effective this 23 day of
August,  2000, and acknowledges that these Articles are the act and deed of Full
Tilt Sports,  Inc.,  that the matters and facts set forth herein with respect to
authorization and approval are true in all material respects.

                                                /s/ Roger K. Burnett
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Roger K. Burnett, President

Attest:  /s/ Joseph F. DeBerry
         -----------------------------
         Joseph F. DeBerry, Secretary