alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eugene Van Hove, appellant, v. Maria Leonia Van Hove et al., appellees.

Filed July 11, 1914.

No. 17,254.

Rehearing of case reported in 94 Neb. 575.

*Judgment of affirmance adhered to.*

Per Curiam.

On rehearing, onr judgment (94 Neb. 575) is adhered to.

Letton, J.,

dissenting.

One of the main points urged in this case is not mentioned in the opinion. It is that Eugene Van Hove was legitimated in Belgium under the laws of that country and that this fixed his status and his right to inherit. In 1 Wharton, Conflict of Laws (3d ed.) ch. 5, the subject of legitimation is exhaustively discussed, and it is shown that if, by the law of the country where the father is domiciled, and the marriage takes place, the subsequent marriage of the parents of an illegitimate child has a legitimatizing effect upon the child, this fixes his status, and this status is not lost by the subsequent removal of the parents and child to another state.

Articles 331, 333 of Livre I, Titre VII, ch. 3, Civil Code of Belgium provides: “Art. 331. Children born out of wedlock, other than those born of incestuous or adulterous communion, may be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their father and mother, when these have legally recognized them before their marriage, *or shall recognise them in the act of marriage.”*

“Art. 333. Children legitimated by subsequent marriage have the same rights as if they were born from that marriage.”

The duly authenticated record of the marriage in Belgium of August Van Hove and Maria Leonia Audenaert introduced by defendants themselves recites: “The above *485named husband and wife agreed taking as their lawful children, *and to recognize them as such:*Eugene Audenaert, born at Sinay the 9th of March, 1889, Joanna Audenaert, born at Lokeren the 29th of September, 1882, and Maria Audenaert, born at Antwerp the 2d day of July, 1885.” ,

In my judgment this settled the status of Eugene Audenaert Van Hove both in Belgium and in this country, and the oral testimony of his mother, 39 years afterwards, when the father was dead, when the son’s conduct had estranged her, and when it was to her financial advantage to deny his paternity, should not be received in the attempt to impeach the legal effect of their solemn act, by denying that August Van Hove was the father of the plaintiff.

I therefore dissent from the judgment of the majority.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00448

- CR

Cedric Tyrone Scott Jr. a/k/a Cedric

Tyrone Scott

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1324883D)

March 26, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete

the $500 fine . I t is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as

modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### John Minshull, appellant, v. Sherman County, appellee.

Filed April 17, 1914.

No. 17,619.

Counties: Claims: Appeal by Taxpayer: Attorney’s Fees. A taxpayer, though permitted by. law to appeal from the allowance of a claim against the county, cannot, in absence of statutory authority, collect from the county fees paid by him to his attorney for prosecuting such an appeal. Rev. St. 1913, sec. 966.

Appeal from the district court for Sherman county: Bruno O. Hostetler, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*R. J. Nightingale*and *E. B. Nightingale,*for appellant.

*J. B. Pedler, contra.*

Rose, J.

Plaintiff alleged in his petition that, as a taxpayer, he appealed from the allowance of two claims against ■ Sherman county, and that he paid his attorney $50' for professional services in successfully prosecuting the appeals. For this sum he demanded judgment against the county. A demurrer to his petition was sustained, and from the dismissal of his action he appealed.

The ruling on the demurrer is right. A statute permits an appeal by a taxpayer from the allowances of a claim against the county, but there is no statute making.the county liable for the fees of his attorney in prosecuting such an appeal. Rev. St. 1913, sec. 966. A taxpayer, *836though permitted by law to appeal from the allowance of a claim against the county, cannot, in absence of statutory authority, collect from the county fees paid by him to his attorney for prosecuting such an appeal.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Douglas Osrow, (the registrant's principal financial officer and principal accounting officer), certify that:





|   |                                                                             
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Remark Media, Inc., and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.




Date: April 30, 2015





By/s/ Douglas OsrowDouglas OsrowChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HEAFNER
TIRE GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. CERTAIN 1999 AMOUNTS HAVE
BEEN RECLASSIFIED TO CONFORM WITH THE 2000 PRESENTATION.
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,796
<INVENTORY>                                    160,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               307,379
<PP&E>                                          61,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 481,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          213,369
<BONDS>                                        161,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,353
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   481,910
<SALES>                                        505,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               505,845
<CGS>                                          382,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  496,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (986)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       989
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (990)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**  **PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS
      AMENDED**





Pursuant
      to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), **** James
      Chu, Chief Executive Officer of ViewSonic Corporation (the "Company"), and
      James
      A. Morlan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that,
      to the best of his knowledge:





**1.**  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, to
      which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act;
      and





**2.**  The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:  August
      ___, 2005





**In
      Witness Whereof** ,
      the
      undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the ____the day of August
      2005.






/s/
              James Chu
            
            /s/
              James A. MorlanJames Chu
            
            James A. MorlanChief Executive Officer
            
            Chief
              Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of
      the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to ViewSonic
      Corporation and will be retained by ViewSonic Corporation and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of ViewSonic Corporation under the Securities Act
      of
      1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether
      made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general
      incorporation language contained in such filing.
§ 34.3 Penalties. ( a ) A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations contained in this part shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both, and shall be adjudged to pay all costs of the proceedings.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph (a) of this section, a person convicted of violating § 34.5(b)(15) of this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100.
# PAC Table 6c

&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000This table was generated on 8/31/23.
#### § 1322.39 Modification during major disaster declaration or public health emergency.

The Assistant Secretary for Aging retains the right to modify the requirements described in these regulations pursuant to a major disaster declaration or public health emergency.
#### § 2301.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 2301.150, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
steam_record - Re: Extension Request - Golden Valley Electric Association 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

-----"Kris E. DuBois" <KEDuBois@gvea.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Kris E. DuBois" <KEDuBois@gvea.com> 

Date: 07/14/2010 04:12PM 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Kris E. DuBois" <KEDuBois@gvea.com>

Date: 7/15/2010 6:44 AM

Subject: Re: Extension Request - Golden Valley Electric Association

Attachments: GVEA Ext Req EPA WW ICR 071410.pdf

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3EAE47D... 8/24/2011
Subject: Extension Request - Golden Valley Electric Association 

Good afternoon: GVEA requests an extension for completion of the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry 

ICR. Please see the attached document. A hard copy is forthcoming via certified mail. Thank you for 

considering our request and please call me if you have any questions. – Kris DuBois/GVEA Environmental 

Officer

Kristen DuBois

Environmental Officer

Golden Valley Electric Association

758 Illinois Street

Fairbanks, AK 99707-1249

(907) 451-5627 office

(907) 458-6369 fax

(907) 388-6300 cell

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3EAE47D... 8/24/2011
#### § 233.22 Determining eligibility under prospective budgeting.

In States which compute the amount of the assistance payment prospectively, the State plan shall provide that the State shall also determine all factors of eligibility prospectively. Thus, the State agency shall establish eligibility based on its best estimate of income and circumstances which will exist in the month for which the assistance payment is made.

[44 FR 26082, May 4, 1979]
§ 1640.4 Violation of agreement. ( a ) LSC will determine that a recipient has violated the agreement described in § 1640.3 when the recipient has been convicted of, or judgment has been entered against the recipient for, a violation of an applicable Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds with respect to its LSC grant or contract, by the court having jurisdiction of the matter, and any appeals of the conviction or judgment have been exhausted or the time for appeal has expired.
( b ) A violation of the agreement by a recipient based on recipient conduct will result in the Corporation terminating the recipient's LSC grant or contract without need for a termination hearing. While an appeal of a conviction or judgment is pending, the Corporation may take any necessary steps to safeguard its funds.
( c ) LSC will determine that the recipient has violated the agreement described in § 1640.3 when an employee or board member of the recipient has been convicted of, or judgment has been entered against the employee or board member for, a violation of an applicable Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds with respect to the recipient's grant or contract with LSC, by the court having jurisdiction of the matter, and any appeals of the conviction or judgment have been exhausted or the time for appeal has expired, and the Corporation finds that the recipient has knowingly or through gross negligence allowed the employee or board member to engage in such activities.
( d ) A violation of the agreement by the recipient based on employee or board member conduct will result in the Corporation terminating the recipient's LSC grant or contract. Prior to termination, the Corporation will provide notice and an opportunity to be heard for the sole purpose of determining whether the recipient knowingly or through gross negligence allowed the employee or board member to engage in the activities leading to the conviction or judgment. While an appeal of a conviction or judgment or a hearing is pending, the Corporation may take any necessary steps to safeguard its funds.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 13, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Mark A. Salazar, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00692-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2009CR9726

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to

withdraw filed by Salazar’s attorney is GRANTED, and the trial court’s order

is AFFIRMED as modified. It is ORDERED no costs shall be assessed against

Salazar in relation to his trial or this appeal because he qualifies as indigent

under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Pulitzer Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan G.
Silverglat, Chief Financial 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:


         (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information
         contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
         financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





                                         /s/ Alan G. Silverglat
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Alan G. Silverglat
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         August  13, 2002





                                       2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report for Digatrade Financial Corpon Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report), the undersigned, Brad J. Moynes, Chief Financial Officer do hereby 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 our knowledge:

 

 

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the

Financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

By:

 

 

*/s/ Brad J. Moynes	*

Brad J. Moynes

Chief Financial Officer

May 1, 2017

 

 

 

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

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report for Digatrade Financial Corpon Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report), the undersigned, Brad J. Moynes, Chief Executive Officer do hereby 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 our knowledge:

 

 

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the

Financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

By:

 

 

*/s/ Brad J. Moynes	*

Brad J. Moynes

Chief Executive Officer

May 1, 2017
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 of Yanglin Soybean, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shulin Liu, Chief
      Executive 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:





(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.





Date:
                December 2, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                SHULIN LIUShulin
                LiuChief
                Executive Officer