alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Judy BRADDY v. TRIANGLE TIMBER, INC.

No. 11519.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 9, 1977.

Henry A. Mentz, Jr., Hammond, for appellant.

Charles B. W. Palmer, Amite, for appel-lee.

Before SARTAIN, COVINGTON and LOTTINGER, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

This is a workmen’s compensation suit. On March 4, 1977, the Trial Court rendered both a preliminary judgment pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1316 as well as a judgment on the merits after a trial. On March 9, 1977, defendant was granted a suspensive appeal and filed the requisite bond.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal only insofar as it relates to the preliminary judgment contending that it is an interlocutory decree which is not appealable citing *Vidrine v. Argonaut-Southwest Insurance Company,*166 So.2d 287 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1964); *Naquin v. Coal Operators Casualty Co.,*157 So.2d 276 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1963); and *Griffith v. Wyatt Lumber Co.,*193 So. 257 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1939).

In *Vidrine,*after a preliminary judgment had been rendered, the suit was dismissed as being premature, and thus with the dismissal fell the preliminary judgment. The Court in passing merely noted “that a preliminary judgment rendered in a workmen’s compensation suit under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1316 is not a final judgment but is interlocutory in nature.”

In *Naquin,*the Court held that an order setting aside two previously granted preliminary judgments was interlocutory and nonappealable.

Similarly in *Griffith*the Court held that an order denying a preliminary judgment was interlocutory and nonappealable.

Generally appeals can only be taken from final judgments or “from an interloeu-*1253tory judgment which may cause irreparable injury.” LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083. Therefore, conceding arguendo that a preliminary judgment pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1316 is interlocutory rather than a final judgment, it could only be appealed if it may cause irreparable injury. However, we note that LSA-R.S. 23:1351 in part provides:

> “Either party may appeal to the proper appellate court from *any judgment*rendered as provided in R.S. 23:1035 and in Part IV of this Chapter. * * *.” (emphasis supplied)

The chapter that is referred to is Chapter 10 of Title 23, Labor and Workmen’s Compensation. Part IV of Chapter 10 includes LSA-R.S. 23:1316, preliminary judgments. Therefore, the conclusion must be reached that even though generally interlocutory decrees are not appealable, a preliminary judgment pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1316, whether interlocutory or not, is appealable. As between a general and a special law, the special law controls. We therefore conclude that there is no merit to plaintiff-appellee’s argument that this is not an appealable judgment.

Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss is denied. All costs of this proceeding before this Court are taxed to plaintiff-appellee.

MOTION DENIED.
<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 Sybron Dental Specialties,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gregory D. Waller, 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 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.

/s/ Gregory D. Waller

Gregory D. Waller
Chief Financial Officer
August 6, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2306 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2306

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on fine animal hair of 
Kashmir (cashmere) goats, processed beyond the degreased or carbonized 
                               condition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2012

 Mr. Lieberman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on fine animal hair of 
Kashmir (cashmere) goats, processed beyond the degreased or carbonized 
                               condition.

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

SECTION 1. FINE ANIMAL HAIR OF KASHMIR (CASHMERE) GOATS, PROCESSED 
              BEYOND THE DEGREASED OR CARBONIZED CONDITION.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.77 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to fine animal hair of Kashmir 
(cashmere) goats, processed beyond the degreased or carbonized 
condition) is amended by striking the date in the effective period 
column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 00-743.

#### Buettner *v.*Arch Coal Sales Co., Inc., et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**UNITED
      STATES**


**SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**


**Washington,
      D.C. 20549**





**FORM
      8-K**





**CURRENT
      REPORT**


**Pursuant
      to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of
      1934**














Date
      of
      Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 2, 2007














**The
      Wilber Corporation**


(Exact
      name of registrant as specified in its charter)














**New
                York**
            **001-31896**
            **15-6018501**(State
                or other jurisdiction
            (Commission
            (IRS
                Employerof
                incorporation)
            File
                Number)
            Identification
                No.)

















**245
      Main Street, Oneonta, New York 13820**


(Address
      of principal executive offices)














Registrant’s
      telephone number, including area code: **(607)
      432-1700**














**Not
      Applicable**


(Former
      name or former address, if changed since last report)





Check
      the
      appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
      satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under
      any
      of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):





o Written
      communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
      230.425)





o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange
      Act
      (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange
      Act
      (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))











**Item
        5.02**  **Departure
        of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
        Principal Officers.**
 
 
 (b)  Phillip
        J. Devine, a director of The Wilber Corporation (“Company”), relinquished his
        position on the Board, effective January 2, 2007, due to health reasons.
        Mr.
        Devine served as a member of the board of directors of Wilber National Bank,
        the
        Company’s sole banking subsidiary since 1979 and of the Company since 1982. Mr.
        Devine was scheduled to retire from the Board in April, 2007 pursuant to
        the
        Company’s mandatory retirement age. The Company did not announce any immediate
        plans to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Devine’s resignation.














2











**SIGNATURES**





Pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
      has
      duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
      duly authorized.





THE
                WILBER CORPORATION(Registrant)/s/
                Joseph E. SutarisJoseph
                E. SutarisSecretary,
                Treasurer & Chief Financial OfficerDate:
                January 2, 2007


































3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM97-5-18-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

August 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 31, 1997, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2, the 
revised tariff sheets contained in Appendix A to the filing.
    Texas Gas states that the proposed tariff sheets reflect changes to 
its Base Tariff Rates pursuant to the Transportation Cost Adjustment 
provisions included as a part of the Stipulation and Agreement in 
Docket No. RP94-423, and contained in Section 39 of the General Terms 
and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, as 
filed on February 23, 1996. The net rate change proposed by this filing 
is an decrease of $0.0030 in the FT and NNS daily demand rates. $0.0004 
in the FT and NNS commodity rates, $0.0064 in the SGT rates for Zones 
1-4, and $0.0051 for SGT-SL. Interruptible transportation and overrun 
rates are also generally decreased by $0.0034. Texas Gas respectfully 
requests that the revised tariff sheets reflecting a net decrease in 
its rates become effective September 1, 1997.
    Texas Gas states that copies of the filing have been served upon 
Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding 
must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with 
the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21078 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #9 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      13, 2008
EXHIBIT  32.2


      STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Pingchuan
Pharmaceutical,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Chunman  Zhang,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  certify  that:

*    the  Report  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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





/s/  Chunman  Zhang
-------------------
Chunman  Zhang
Chief  Financial  Officer



August  23,  2004
#### Odis McCALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-1696.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 24, 1976.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Paul M. Herman, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*1035PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

CROSS, J., and PAUL, MAURICE M., and CARLTON, CHARLES T., Associate Judges, concur.
No. 43282.

Suit 4280.

#### Wilbur-Ellis *Co. et al.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 163 and Abstract 41147 reversed. C. A. D. 90.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.;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;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions);
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  August 13, 2009
    By:
    /s/ William J. CardenWilliam J. CardenChief Executive Officer
#### In the Interest of G. L. T., Jr., a child. George L. THOMAS, Jr., Appellant. v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-930, 76-1492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1977.

*80Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Steven H. Parton, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the authority of *In the Interest of R. P. C.,*352 So.2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed June 3, 1977).

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent. The Appellant was a juvenile taken into custody on February 24, 1976. The person who took him into custody was required to file an intake report within three days after the taking into custody occurred. Section 39.-03(2), Florida Statutes (1975). The intake report was not filed until March 3, 1976, therefore the child should have been discharged. *In the Interest of J. W. H., et al., etc.*v. *State of Florida,*345 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA, opinion filed May 18, 1977).

I am aware of the opinion from our court referred to in the majority opinion here, to which I would have dissented if I were a member of that panel. The legislature used the word *shall*and as was said in *J. W. H.,*supra, we should interpret words the way they are written and not the way they should have been written. In this case sub-judiee the lack of prejudice to the Appellant is quite obvious on its face and the detriment tó society should my position here prevail could possibly be great. However, the legislature must be taken at its word.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties,Ltd. III 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000720460
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          3,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,058
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,888
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,459
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,738
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    76.87<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 42190.

#### Protests 629709-G, etc., of Ossola Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the-authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of The Dewey Electronics Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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
Corporation.





/s/ Stephen P. Krill
--------------------

Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer
Date:  September 26, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Dewey Electronics Corporation and will be retained by The Dewey
Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and exchange commission
or its staff upon request.




                                       46
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00372-CV

Rudy Hernandez

v.

Krystle Guerra

On Appeal from the

139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-2718-21-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 30, 2022