alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Margaret QUINN, Appellant, v. Kimberly Ann GORMAN, A. Morey, Ann Morey, and Travelers Indemnity Company, a Foreign Corporation doing business in Florida, Appellees.

No. 76-2634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 24, 1978.

Robert J. McFann and Dale R. Sanders of Di Giulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons & Sanders, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

George E. Bunnell and Thomas E. Scott, Jr. of Huebner, Shaw & Bunnell, P. A., Fort' Lauderdale, for appellee Travelers.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that a policy of insurance provided by the appellee, Travelers Indemnity Company, to its insured, Ann Morey, did not provide coverage for the insured’s liability under Section 322.09, Florida Statutes (1975), whereby the insured may be liable for her daughter’s negligence because of co-signing the minor daughter’s application for a driver’s license. We affirm.

The appellant, Margaret Quinn, was injured in an accident involving an automobile owned and operated by the appellee, *430Kimberly Ann Gorman. At the time of the accident Kimberly was not a resident of the household of her mother, Ann Morey. Travelers insured Mrs. Morey under a liability policy which by its terms covered Mrs. Morey and residents of her household for accidents involving anyone’s authorized use of Mrs. Morey’s automobile and Mrs. Mor-ey’s use of any automobile. There was no coverage provided in the policy for Mrs. Morey’s liability under Florida Statute 322.-09.

The appellant contends that public policy mandates that Section 322.09 be made a part of Travelers’ policy as a matter of law for otherwise there will be no insurance coverage in this case. The chief source for the expression of public policy is the legislature. However, we can find no legislative enactments which require that the insurance contract include this coverage. Absent such a legislative requirement the parties are free to contract as they please. The final summary judgment is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-17009, 333-43633 and 333-69583) of Computer
Learning Centers, Inc. of our report dated March 17, 1999, except as to Note 16,
which is as of April 29, 1999, appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K.
 
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
---------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
May 3, 1999
**Exhibit32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer Certification**

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

R. Jack DeCrane, theChief Executive Officer and Richard J. Kaplan, the Chief Financial Officer ofDeCrane Holdings Co., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                      the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

 

2.                      theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of DeCrane Holdings Co.

 
| Date:  November 6, 2003 |                                             |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                             |
|                         | /s/  R. JACK DECRANE                        |
|                         | R. Jack DeCrane                                  |
|                         | Chief Executive  Officer                         |
|                         |                                             |
|                         |                                             |
|                         | /s/  RICHARD J. KAPLAN                      |
|                         | Richard J.  Kaplan                               |
|                         | Chief Financial  Officer and Assistant Secretary |

 

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NORMA KNOPF, Individually and as :

Administratrix of the Estate of PAUL

KNOPF, deceased, : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-04-2719

Plaintiff : (Judge McClure)

v. :

AVCO CORPORATION, et al., :

Defendants :

O R D E R

May 19, 2005

BACKGROUND: 

The court has been presented with a stipulation whereby plaintiff, Norma

Knopf, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Paul Knopf, deceased,

dismisses without prejudice the following named defendants from this litigation: the

New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Piper Aircraft Corporation, now known as the New Piper

Aircraft, Inc., and Piper Aircraft Corporation irrevocable trust (the “Piper Aircraft

Defendants”). The stipulation states various conditions and was presented to the

court with the implied request that it be adopted as an Order of Court. 

The stipulation itself does not state whether it is filed under Federal Rule of

Case 4:04-cv-02719-JFM Document 24 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) or 41(a)(2). If intended to be under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) it

would need to be signed by all parties who appeared in the action, and if that

requirement was satisfied, the stipulation would not then require the approval of the

court. 

However, none of the other parties who have appeared in the action has

either signed the stipulation or concurred in the request for approval by the court. 

The court must therefore assume that it is submitted under Rule 41(a)(2), but

it is defective as a motion for an order of court as it does not comply with LR 7.1

of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania: the motion does not contain a certification by counsel for the

movant that he or she has sought concurrence in the motion by each party, and that

it has been either given or denied. 

The court is further confused by the statement in the fourth paragraph of the

stipulation that “the within dismissal without prejudice will not count as a dismissal

under any circumstances as to any of the parties herein as a dismissal for the

purposes of Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any similar

state court rule and/or similar statute”. It would appear that the intended reference

was to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) rather than to Rule 41(a)(1)(i). 

While the stipulation may be meritorious, the court will not enter an order

Case 4:04-cv-02719-JFM Document 24 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 3
3

approving it absent concurrence by all parties who appeared in the action; or,

absent such concurrence, without the filing of a motion fully briefed. See LR 7.5,

7.6 and 7.7. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

1. The clerk is directed to file and docket the stipulation. 

2. The implied request that the stipulation be adopted as an order of

court is denied. 

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02719-JFM Document 24 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 3
#### Horace Wayne VOWELL v. Joyce Fulford VOWELL.

No. 11-428.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 11, 1977.

*731Eddie N. Pullaro, Houma, for plaintiff and appellant.

Ernest A. Kelly, Houma, for defendant and appellee.

Before SARTAIN, COVINGTON and LOTTINGER, JJ.

COVINGTON, Judge:

The appellant neither filed a brief nor appeared when the case was called for argument. Therefore, under Rule VII, Section 5(b), the appeal is considered abandoned and it is dismissed at the appellant’s cost.

DISMISSED.
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2015 -**  **1987**
#### Joseph GERENDAY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION, Gulf American Fire & Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38345.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 23, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1969.

Ronald L. Sims, of Magyar & Sims, Orlando, for petitioner.

B. C. Pyle, of Whittaker, Pyle & Wood, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date February 24, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.

It is further ordered that the petitioner’s petition for allowance of attorney’s fees, be and the same is hereby denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of BWAY
Holding Company and BWAY Corporation (the Companies) does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

This annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2009 of the Companies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this
Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

Date: December 11, 2009



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Kenneth M. Roessler                                         
|                                                                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: December 11, 2009



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Michael B. Clauer                            
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                       

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer  of Golden Spirit Enterprises Ltd.(the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for  the  quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934  and that information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.
# Troop Support commander discusses leadership with Rutgers cadets

/ Published Feb. 27, 2017
New Brunswick, N.J., 
The commander of Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support emphasized the importance of military fundamentals to ROTC cadets at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Feb. 23.

Army Brig. Gen. Charles Hamilton advised the cadets that to be successful, officers must ensure their units are highly fit, highly trained and highly disciplined. 

“There can be no negotiation on those three,” Hamilton said.

He emphasized how physical fitness, endurance and stamina have a positive impact on a soldier’s ability to perform both combat and non-combat missions, and how it is the officer’s responsibility to ensure continuous attention to fitness.

“You want them to be physically fit and as strong as possible,” Hamilton said.

He also suggested the cadets continue to hone other fundamental skills. He said the prevalence of GPS technology is eroding land-navigation skills. Since soldiers cannot count on GPS being available in every hostile situation, they must remain proficient in working with map and compass.

One of the cadets said he appreciated the general’s advice.

“The biggest statement that stood out to me was that every solider should be a combat solider,” said Nicholas Scherer, who aims to become an active-duty infantry officer. “I believe this is true because we will not always know what comes next, and each soldier needs to be prepared for the worst, no matter what your job title says.”

The general also cautioned the cadets to avoid the life-changing mistakes that can derail careers. He said fraternization could undermine young lieutenants who learn they have many of the same interests as the soldiers they lead.

“You guys will have so much in common, you won’t believe it,” he said. “It’s OK to be friendly, but not OK to be friends.”

He said nobody is perfect and mistakes will happen, but the key is to avoid life-changing mistakes.

“We expect you to make mistakes, just don’t keep repeating them,” Hamilton said.

He also advised the cadets not to overreact to their soldiers’ mistakes. Going off the deep end and assigning extreme punishments may cause senior officers to doubt a junior officer’s ability to handle increased responsibility.

“You have to handle it,” he said. “If you handle it like a normal person, you’re probably going to be fine.”

Scherer said he values senior military officers who visit the cadets and offer their perspectives on leadership.

“When experienced leaders come and take time out of their busy schedules to speak at our ROTC program, two things hit home to me,” Scherer said. “The first shows that the leader is humble and wants the best for the Army, so I immediately have the utmost respect for him or her. In addition, these senior leaders remind us young, soon-to-be lieutenants that the principles of leadership remain the same regardless of the size or type of your unit.”
|                                                      |              |                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                 |         |                                   |
| Subsidiary                                           |    | Jurisdiction of Formation/Organization |
| Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC                 |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| TERH LP Inc.                                         |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| TER Development Co. LLC                              |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| TER Keystone Development Co., LLC                    |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| TER Management Co., LLC                              |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P.           |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| Trump Entertainment Resorts Development Company, LLC |    | Delaware                               |
|                                                 |         |
| Trump Marina Associates, LLC                         |    | New Jersey                             |
|                                                 |         |
| Trump Plaza Associates, LLC                          |    | New Jersey                             |
|                                                 |         |
| Trump Taj Mahal Associates, LLC                      |    | New Jersey                             |
|                                                 |         |                                   |
EXHIBIT 21

            SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Parent
------

Kentucky First Bancorp, Inc.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         State or Other              Percentage
Subsidiaries (1)                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation      Ownership
----------------                   -----------------------------     ----------
<S>                                         <C>                         <C>
First Federal Savings Bank                   United States               100%

Cynthiana Service Corporation (2)            Kentucky                    100%
<FN>
_____________
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries
     are included in the consolidated financial statements
     contained in the financial statements attached hereto as an
     exhibit.
(2)  Wholly owned subsidiary of First Federal Savings Bank.
</FN>
</TABLE>
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.1


	
				
	AMENDMENT NO. 1 OF THE 
MID-CON ENERGY PARTNERS, LP 
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PROGRAM

	THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made as of the date set forth below by Mid-Con Energy GP, LLC (the “Company”).



	W I T N E S S E T H :

	WHEREAS, the Mid-Con Energy Partners, LP Long-Term Incentive Program (the “Program”) is maintained for the benefit of certain eligible persons as set forth in the Program; and
WHEREAS, all words with initial capital letters shall have the same meaning herein as ascribed thereto in the Program; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Program, effective as set forth below, to increase the number of units representing limited partner interests available thereunder; and
WHEREAS, in Section 7 of the Program, the Board reserved the right to amend the Program from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Board has approved the amendment of the Program to effect the changes generally described above and as specifically set forth in the amendment below;



	NOW, THEREFORE, the Program is hereby amended by this Amendment No. 1 thereto, as follows:

	 
	1.
The first sentence of Section 4(a) is hereby amended to provide as follows:



	“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c), the maximum number of Units that may be delivered with respect to Awards under the Program is 3,514,000.”

	 
	2.     Except as modified herein, the Program is specifically ratified and affirmed.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 of the Program is executed this 20th day of November, 2015, to be effective as herein provided.

	 
	 
	MID-CON ENERGY GP, LLC

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Nathan P. Pekar

	 
	 
	 
	Nathan P. Pekar

	 
	 
	 
	Vice President, General Counsel and

	 
	 
	 
	Secretary
# L_2007114EN.01002601.xml

| 1.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 114/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 114/26

---

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 25 April 2007

appointing a judge to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

(2007/266/EC, Euratom)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 224 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 140 thereof,

Whereas:

Pursuant to Articles 5 and 7, in conjunction with Article 47, of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and following the resignation of Mr Bo Vesterdorf, a judge should be appointed to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 31 August 2010,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Sten Frimodt Nielsen is hereby appointed judge to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the period from 17 September 2007 to 31 August 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 April 2007.

The President

W. SCHÖNFELDER

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7632

EDWARD PERNELL HARRIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden Federal Correctional

Complex Petersburg, Virginia; DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, D.C.; RECORDS CENTER, D.C.,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-1003-1)

Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Pernell Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edward Pernell Harris, a prisoner in federal custody

serving a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The order is not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Madley v. United States Parole

Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 of Advanced Plant Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.

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


Date:  April 19, 2007

                                                    By: /s/ David Lieberman
                                                        -------------------
                                                        David Lieberman
                                                        Chief Executive Officer