alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>25
Exhibit 32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company


By:  /s/Mary D. Cohron
        Mary D. Cohron
        Chief Executive Officer



Date:  May 16, 2005

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31,2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") I, Bill Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company


By:  /s/ Bill D. Wright
         Bill D. Wright
         Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 16, 2005

                                                25
#### In the Matter of National City Bank of New York et al., Appellants; National Surety Corporation, Respondent.

Argued May 20, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*602
      *E. Lacy Finnan, Samuel Wechsler*and *Benjamin F. Tracy*for appellants.

*Leo T. Kissam, J. Francis Hayden, Henry W. Nichols*and *Alexander Foster, Jr.,*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

Concur: Cbane, Ch. J., Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, O’Brien and Rippey, JJ.
#### McBRIDE v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 437.11 Duration of an experimental permit.

An experimental permit lasts for one year from the date it is issued. A permittee may apply to renew a permit yearly under part 413 of this subchapter.
No. 17,378.

#### The Corporation of the Town of Troy *v.*Eble et al.

Filed January 28, 1896;

petition for rehearing overruled April 3, 1896.

Appellate *Procedure.—Sufficiency of*Evidence.—The refusal of a new trial, asked on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, in a suit by a town to recover as part of a public street land fenced in by defendant, will not be disturbed on appeal where there was evidence that the strip in controversy had never been dedicated by the owner to the public.

Prom the Spencer Circuit Court.

*I. S. Bramel*and *8. K. Connor,*for appellant.

*Mattison, Posey & Clark,*for appellees.

McCabe, J.

Suit by appellant to recover possession of a strip of land alleged to be part of the public street in said town, and which it is alleged defendants have fenced in so as to obstruct said street. Issues were made, tried, and resulted in a finding and judgment for the defendants. A new trial as of right resulted in asecond finding and judgment for defendants. The only error assigned is the ruling on appellant’s motion for a new trial, and the only reason for a new trial discussed in the appellant’s brief relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. There was evidence from which the court might have found that the strip in controversy had never been dedicated by the owner to the public.

In view of the rule that we will not reverse a judgment where there is evidence to sustain it, though controverted by other evidence, we cannot reverse the judgment in this case.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4855 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4855

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, Texas, as the ``Lance 
              Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 23 (legislative day, October 19), 2020

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Cruz) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, Texas, as the ``Lance 
              Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL RHONALD DAIN RAIRDAN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1305 U.S. Highway 90 West in Castroville, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lance Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance 
Corporal Rhonald Dain Rairdan Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MACK TRUESDALE,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 21 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of April, 2017, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.E.T. an Z.D.T, * From the 446 th District Court

children, of Ector County

Trial Court No. E

- 16

- 057

- PC.

No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 350

- C V * June 6, 2019

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C. J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J.,

Stretcher

, J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

37 38 39 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 09/05 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 05 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL
#### Manuel Stematiadis, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

This case was decided by the Court En Banc.

Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record for Hills-borough County.

*R. W. Davis*and *8. T. Fletcher,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Park Trammell,*Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of an assault with intent to rape a female over the age of ten years and sentenced to a term of twenty years in the State’s prison.

The State wholly failed to make out a case of non-consent, and the evidence is unsatisfactory in other respects.

The judgment is reversed.

All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ida W. Schick, Appellant, *v.*Rolland B. Marvin, as Mayor of the City of Syracuse, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 26, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*James C. Tormey, Corporation Counsel {John F. Hmiel*of counsel), for motion.

*James F. Brazell, Frank J. Cregg, Jr.,*and *Thomas J. Lowery*opposed.

Motion denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BURK N. ASHFORD, AKA California

Sun,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ALEX PADILLA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 17417

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00714

- CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted February 14, 2017 ***

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Burk N. Ashford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

F EB 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17417

violations arising from his California trademark renewal application. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. Rhoades v. Avon Prods

. , Inc ., 504 F.3d 1151,

1156 (9th Cir. 2007) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ashford’s due process claim because

Ashford failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a deprivation of a

constitutionally protected property interest. See Wright v. Riveland , 219 F.3d 905,

913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural due process claim).

To the extent that Ashford claimed he was entitled to trademark renewal

under California law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. See Carnegie

- Mellon

Univ. v. Cohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 1988) (where all federal claims are eliminated

before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over remaining state law claims); Tritchler v. County of Lake , 358 F.3d 1150, 1153

(9th Cir. 2004) ( setti ng forth standard of review).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).3 15

- 17417

Ashford’s request for judicial notice and motion for sanctions, filed on

October 27, 2016, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

November 26, 2014

Mr. Marc Rotenburg

EPIC Executive Director

EPIC 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009

Ms. Amie Stepanovich EPIC National Security Counsel

EPIC 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Rotenburg and Ms. Stepanovich:

This is in response to your March 8, 2012 lett er sent to the public docket (Docket No. FAA-2012-0306) petitioning the Federal Aviati on Administration (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to address the threat of privacy and civil liberties that will result from the deployment of aerial drones within the United States.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA mu st use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have availabl e to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system.

After reviewing your request, we have determin ed that the issue you have raised is not an immediate safety concern. Moreover, the FAA has begun a rulemaking addressing civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system. We will consider your comments and argumen ts as part of that project.2

When the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find out and track it through one of the two following websites:

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings ).

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semi-annual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu Director, Office of Rulemaking
§ 1955.30 Submission of documentary evidence. ( a ) Where there has been no consent finding or summary decision under subpart C of this part and a formal hearing is necessary, the administrative law judge shall set a date by which all documentary evidence, which is to be offered during the hearing, shall be submitted to the administrative law judge and served on the other parties. Such submission date shall be sufficiently in advance of the hearing as to permit study and preparation for cross-examination and rebuttal evidence. Documentary evidence not submitted in advance may be received into evidence upon a clear showing that the offering party had good cause for failure to produce the evidence sooner.
( b ) The authenticity of all documents submitted in advance shall be deemed admitted unless written objections are filed prior to the hearing, except that a party will be permitted to challenge such authenticity at a later date upon clear showing of good cause for failure to have filed such written objections.
```

[House Document 113-153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 113-153

 
          AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY INCREASES

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY INCREASES FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
           UNIFORMED SERVICES, PURSUANT TO 37 U.S.C. 1009(e)

  September 8, 2014.--Referred to the Committee on Armed Services and 
                         ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                       Washington, August 29, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: I am transmitting an alternative plan for 
monthly basic pay increases for members of the uniformed 
services for 2015.
    I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service 
members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation 
over the past decade of war. As our country continues to 
recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general 
welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation 
on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough 
choices, especially in light of budget constraints.
    Accordingly, I have determined it is appropriate to 
exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United 
States Code, to set the 2015 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 
percent. This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2015 
Budget and it will not materially affect the Federal 
Government's ability to attract and retain well-qualified 
members for the uniformed services.
    The adjustments described above shall take effect on 
January 1, 2015.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Barack Obama.

                                  

```
#### Sylvester Wetkopsky *vs.*The New Haven Gas Light Company.

Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,

October Term, 1916.

Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler and Beach, Js.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for an alleged breach of the defendant’s contract to sell him a house for immediate removal from its lot, and the jury awarded him $1,800. *Held*that this court was not prepared to say that this amount was so excessive, in view of certain evidence of the plaintiff, as to have precluded the jury from reasonably reaching their verdict for that sum.

Argued October 24th—

decided December 19th, 1916.

Action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before *Tuttle, J.;*verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,800, and appeal by the defendant.

*No error.*

*Thomas M. Steele*and *Harrison T. Sheldon,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Samuel A. Persky,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

Upon the third trial of this action for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of a house *176to the plaintiff, the jury rendered a verdict for $1,800, and the defendant appeals from the refusal of the trial judge to set the verdict aside as excessive. The facts are stated in former opinions of this court. 88 Conn. 1, 90 Atl. 30; 90 Conn. 286, 96 Atl. 950.

One Doherty, a contractor and builder, testified that he had a contract with plaintiff for about $700, of which $150 was for moving the house across the street to the plaintiff’s lot, and the balance for incidental work and repairs; that the house as it stood on the defendant’s premises was worth from $1,800 to $2,200 for the purpose of being moved across the street, and that when so moved and his contract completed, its reasonable value would be $2,600; also that a barn which the plaintiff was compelled to tear down to make room for the house was worth from $300 to $500. If the jury accepted these valuations, they might have found that the house after being moved on to the plaintiff’s lot would have been worth $1,900 more than the necessary expenses of moving it and putting it in condition. Had the contract been carried out, it would be necessary to deduct from this the value of the barn, in order to get at the net value of the bargain to the plaintiff. But by reason of the breach the plaintiff has lost both house and barn, and so has lost his bargain, of the net value of say $1,500, and his barn of the value of say $300 also.

Doherty appears to be the only witness as to values who actually examined the house, and we cannot say that his valuations were so high that the jury could not reasonably accept them. The action of the trial judge in refusing to set aside the verdict is also entitled to weight.

There is no error.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2069-000]

Indeck-Rockford, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 8, 2000.
    Indeck-Rockford, L.L.C. (Indeck-Rockford) submitted for filing a 
rate schedule under which Indeck-Rockford will engage in wholesale 
electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. Indeck-Rockford 
also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
Indeck-Rockford requested that the Commission grant blanket approval 
under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by Indeck-Rockford.
    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 Indeck-Rockford 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, Indeck-Rockford is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, 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 Indeck-Rockford'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. 00-11931 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
### Co urt of A ppe als, State of Mi chi ga n ORD E R People of MI v Mohammad Masroor DocketNo . 32228 0; 322281;322282 LC No. 14-000869-FC; 14-000858-FC ; 14 -000857 - FC Michael J. Talb ot , C .J. Presiding Judge All Court of Ap pe als Judges

The Court orders that the order issued December 17 , 2015 convening a speci a l panel in this matter is VACA TED , a clerical error having been made in the polling conducted pursu ant to MCR 7.215(1 ) . The Court further orders that a specia l panel shall not be convened pursu ant to MCR 7.215(1) to resolve a conflict between this case and People of MI v Alexander Jeremy Stean house , _ Mich App_ ( Docket No. 318329 , issued October 22, 2015).

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr. , Chief Cl erk , on 

## D

EC 1 8 2 015 Date