alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony M. Appelget v. Mary J. McWhinney et al.

Filed June 26, 1894.

No. 5161.

1. When no motion for a new trial is made in an equity case, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding will not be reviewed on petition in error.

2. Review: Bill oe Exceptions. This court will not consider an assignment in a petition in error that the verdict of the jury, or the finding of the court, is not supported by the evidence, unless the evidence is before the court by a proper bill of exceptions.

Error from the district court of Johnson county. Tried below before Broady, J.

*T. Appelget,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. C. Chapman, contra.*

Noryal, C. J.

This was an action brought by plaintiff in error to foreclose a real estate mortgage. The district court found the issues in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the action. Plaintiff prosecutes a petition in error to this court, alleging the following grounds for reversal: » .

1. The findings and decree are not sustained by the evidence, and are contrary to law.

*2542. The findings and decree should have been in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

This record presents no question for review, for two reasons:

1. No motion for a new trial was made in the lower court.

2. There is no bill of exceptions in the case preserving the testimony taken on the trial.

The rule is firmly established in this state that a motion 'for a new trial is necessary to obtain a review of the findings of the trial court in an equity cause, by proceedings in error. *(Dunham v.*Courtnay, 24 Neb., 627; *Carlow v. Aultman,*28 Neb., 672; *Gaughran v. Crosby,*33 Neb., 33.) It is equally well settled that the supreme court will not consider an assignment in a petition in error that the verdict of the jury or the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, unless the evidence is before the court by a proper bill of exceptions. *(Schroeder v. Rinehard,*25 Neb., 75; *Leech v. Philpott,*12 Neb., 577; *Robberts v. Hershiser,*20 Neb., 594.) The judgment is

Affirmed.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000650 29-JAN-2015 07:57 AM
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company) for
the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Keith Guelpa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ R. Keith Guelpa    
|    |  | R. Keith Guelpa        
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | March 31, 2009
#### § 101-26.103 Establishing essentiality of requirements.
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

The following certification accompanies the issuer's Annual Report on Form
10-KSB and is not filed, as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986
dated June 5, 2003.

In connection with the Annual Report of Eagle Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Larry A. Dreyer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J. Johnson, 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
undersigned's knowledge:

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

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

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


/s/ Larry A. Dreyer                             /s/ Peter J. Johnson
-------------------------------------           ---------------------
Larry A. Dreyer                                 Peter J. Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer           Sr. VP/Treasurer and Chief
September 16, 2005                              Financial Officer
                                                September 16, 2005
Original

No. *7753*

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Peter Mitchell *& a.*

January 16, 1978

*David H. Souter,*attorney general *(Edward N. Damon,*assistant attorney general, orally), for the State.

*William P. Shea*and *Lee Mattson,*of Sanbornville (Mr. *Mattson*orally), for the defendants.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendants were convicted in Durham District Court of attempted theft in violation of RSA 687:3. There is no transcript of the testimony. After several procedural events not material to the issue before us, the District Court *(Nadeau,*J.) denied the defendants’ motion to certify to this court, in advance of an appeal de novo to the superior court, the question whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Defendants thereafter filed *2this petition for a writ of certiorari in this court claiming an abuse of discretion on the part of the Durham District Court.

Defendants have not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant a certification of questions of law to this court under the provisions of RSA 502-A:17-a (Supp. 1975) and RSA 491:17. *State v. Varney,*117 N.H. 163, 370 A.2d 289 (1977); *State v. Doyle,*117 N.H. 789, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977).

*Petition dismissed.*

Lampron, J., did not sit.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.2

                            AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
          COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Nine Months
                            Ended September 30,
                                (Unaudited)                Years Ended December 31,
                            -------------------   ------------------------------------------
                               2004     2003       2003     2002     2001     2000     1999
                              ------   ------     ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
<S>                           <C>      <C>        <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
Pretax income from
   continuing operations      $3,768   $3,157     $4,247   $3,727   $1,596   $3,908   $3,438
Interest expense               1,206    1,232      1,617    1,846    2,888    2,952    2,178
Other adjustments                109      117        157      174      175      163      151
                              ------   ------     ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
Total earnings (a)            $5,083   $4,506     $6,021   $5,747   $4,659   $7,023   $5,767
                              ======   ======     ======   ======   ======   ======   ======

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense           $1,206   $1,232     $1,617   $1,846   $2,888   $2,952   $2,178
   Other adjustments             107      104        140      151      170      165      152
                              ------   ------     ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
Total fixed charges (b)       $1,313   $1,336     $1,757   $1,997   $3,058   $3,117   $2,330
                              ======   ======     ======   ======   ======   ======   ======

Ratio of earnings
   to fixed charges (a/b)       3.87     3.37       3.43     2.88     1.52     2.25     2.48
</TABLE>

Included in interest expense in the above computation is interest expense
related to the international banking operations of American Express Company
(American Express) and Travel Related Services' cardmember lending activities,
which is netted against interest and dividends and cardmember lending net
finance charge revenue, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

For purposes of the "earnings" computation, other adjustments include adding the
amortization of capitalized interest, the net loss of affiliates accounted for
under the equity method whose debt is not guaranteed by American Express, the
minority interest in the earnings of majority-owned subsidiaries with fixed
charges, and the interest component of rental expense and subtracting
undistributed net income of affiliates accounted for under the equity method.

For purposes of the "fixed charges" computation, other adjustments include
capitalized interest costs and the interest component of rental expense.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 


APR 19 2011 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Michael A. Nash 

Associate General Counsel, 

U.S. Business Operations 

P.O. Box 33428 

St. Paul, Minnesota 55133 

Dear Mr. Nash: 

Thank you for your letter of January 28, 2011 , to Administrator Jackson in which you 

submitted a Petition for Administrative Reconsideration on behalf of 3M Company (3M). In the 

petition, 3M seeks reconsideration of the reporting requirements for fluorinated greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) used as heat transfer fluids (HTFs) under Subpart I of the recently finalized Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs. 3M's main concern, 

as detailed in your letter, is that as the rule is currently written, the reporting requirements for 

HTFs will exclude a significant portion of fluorinated GHGs used as HTFs in electronics 

manufacturing. As a result, according to your letter, the GHG emissions associated with HTFs 

will not be accurately reported under the rule. 

We understand the concerns that you raise in your letter regarding the potential exclusion 

of certain fluorinated HTFs from reporting ul)der Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 98, and we appreciate 

your bringing this important issue to our attention. Receiving data on emissions from the use of 

fluorinated HTFs will provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with 

comprehensive information on all emissions, including quantities and sources from electronics 

manufacturing facilities. 

EPA did not intend to exclude a significant portion of fluorinated GHGs used as HTFs 

from the monitoring and reporting requirements in Subpart I; any such exclusion was 

inadvertent. For this reason, we are committed to revisiting the issue and evaluating what 

revisions the Agency could propose for Subpart I to ensure that fluorinated HTFs used in 

electronics manufacturing are appropriately monitored and reported. EPA views such data on 

the emissions of fluorinated HTFs as an important component in improving future efforts to 

characterize GHG emissions from the electronics manufacturing sector. 

Intemet Address (URL) _ http://www.epa .gov 


Recycled/Recyclable _ Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% POSlconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 

Again, thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention. We will be in contact 

with you as we move Jorward to address the issue of reporting fluorinated GHGs used and HTFs 

in Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 98. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact Paul 

Gunning in the Climate Change Division at (202) 343-9736. 

Sincerely, 

ina McCarthy 


Assistant Administrator
§ 101-29.402 Exceptions to mandatory use of Federal product descriptions. ( a ) Federal product descriptions do not need to be used under any of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The purchase is required under a public exigency and a delay in obtaining agency requirements would be involved in using the applicable description.
( 2 ) The total amount of the purchase is less than $10,000. (Multiple small purchases of the same item shall not be made for the purpose of avoiding the intent of this exception. Further, this exception in no way affects the requirements for the procurement of items available from GSA supply distribution facilities, Federal Supply Schedule contracts, GSA procurement programs, and certain procurement sources other than GSA that have been assigned supply responsibility for Federal agencies as provided in subparts 101-26.3, § 101-26.4, and § 101-26.5).
( 3 ) The items are purchased in foreign markets for use of overseas activities of agencies.
( 4 ) The products are adequately described in voluntary standards or in standards mandated by law.
( 5 ) The acquisition involves a one-time procurement.
( 6 ) A Federal product description is not currently available and is not expected to be available within a reasonable time of the scheduled acquisition action.
( 7 ) The product is available only from a single source or is produced to a single manufacturer's design.
( 8 ) The product is unique to a single system.
( 9 ) The product (excluding military clothing) is acquired for authorized resale.
( b ) If the purchase involves the following, Federal product descriptions do not need to be used except to the extent they are applicable, in whole or in part: ( 1 ) Items required in construction of facilities for new processes or new installations of equipment;
( 2 ) Items required for experiment, test, or research and development; or
( 3 ) Spare parts, components, or material required for operation, repair, or maintenance of existing equipment.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/BECERRA

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE PRO HAC VICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Elizabeth A. Greenman of the law firm Latham & Watkins 

LLP appears as counsel for Defendant Lawrence Gene David, and requests that all papers served 

in this case also be delivered to and served at the address set forth below. 

Per Rule 4(b)(4) of the Rules Governing the Admission, Practice, Peer Review, and 

Discipline of Attorneys for the Southern District of Florida, Ms. Greenman was previously 

admitted to appear pro hac vice in this case on behalf of Defendants Thomas Brady and Gisele 

Bündchen and states that all information provided in support of her initial pro hac vice motion 

remains current and correct, including the sponsoring co-counsel.

Dated: April 6, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 476-7400

Facsimile: (305) 476-7444

By: Roberto Martínez

Roberto Martínez

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Florida Bar No. 305596 

Email: bob@colson.com

 Attorney for Defendant Lawrence Gene David

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3045.17 Prevention of market disruption.

Notwithstanding the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation or any adjustment granted pursuant to § 3045.16, the Commission may limit the amount of revenues the Postal Service may obtain from any particular geographic market as necessary to prevent the creation of an unfair or otherwise inappropriate competitive advantage for the Postal Service or any mailer, particularly in regard to small business concerns, as defined in § 3010.101(t) of this chapter.

[85 FR 9659, Feb. 19, 2020]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Birdingin the United States: a demographic and economic analysis : addendum to the ...National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation**
 
2001 | 2006| 2011per
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.98/4-2:B 53/
Item Number:0614-D-07 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001062905
 
July 2, 2018
#### § 7.8 Open meetings, Freedom of Information, and Privacy of Information.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (1)-(10), enacted by Public Law 94-409, the Government in the Sunshine Act, govern in the case of any request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, to copy or to inspect the transcripts or electronic recordings described in § 7.6 of these bylaws. Nothing in 5 U.S.C. 552b authorizes the Board to withhold from any individual any record, including the transcripts or electronic recordings described in § 7.6 of these bylaws, to which the individual may otherwise have access under 5 U.S.C. 552a, enacted by the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
                  --------------------------------------------

THIS STSTEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000003941
<NAME>                     ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                             914
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,321
<INVENTORY>                                     72,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,131
<PP&E>                                         134,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,688
<BONDS>                                          1,797
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257,253
<SALES>                                        226,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,196
<CGS>                                          199,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   910
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,451)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,451)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.14)




</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ITS Networks Inc. (the " Company" ) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the " Report" ), the undersigned President and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




****Date: January 24, 2005
By:
/s/ Gustavo GomezGustavo GomezChief Executive Officer,President and Treasurer




****By:
/s/ Herman de HaasHermand de HaasExecutive Vice President,Chief Operating Officer andPrincipal Accounting and Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 7, 2011 

s0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141590 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141590 

 COA: 296914 

Wayne CC: 05-007110 

NIGEL LEE WHITTAKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 15




June 6, 2003


Albertson's, Inc.
Boise, Idaho



We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited  interim financial
information of Albertson's,  Inc. and subsidiaries for the thirteen-week periods
ended May 1, 2003 and May 2, 2002,  as  indicated  in our  report  dated June 4,
2003;  because we did not  perform  an audit,  we  expressed  no opinion on that
information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the thirteen-week period ended May 1, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-54998 on Form S-3 and
Registration  Statement Nos.  2-80776,  33-2139,  33-7901,  33-15062,  33-43635,
33-62799, 33-59803, 333-82157, 333-82161, 333-87773 and 333-73194 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  is not  considered  a part  of the  Registration
Statement  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared  or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




/S/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boise, Idaho
#### § 101-20.0 Cross-reference to the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) 41 CFR chapter 102 parts 1 through 220).

For information on management of buildings and grounds, *see* FMR part 102-74 (41 CFR part 102-74).