alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IOWA MEATS, INC., and Great American Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Merian Scott GENTRY and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38146.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1969.

A. Frank O’Kelley and H. O. Pember-ton, of Keen, O’Kelley & Spitz, Tallahassee, for petitioners.

Edgar C. Booth, of Douglass & Booth, 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 dated December 2, 1968.

We find upon argument of counsel for the respective parties, consideration of the briefs and the record in this cause that the essential requirements of law have not been violated. It is, therefore, ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby denied.

The respondent’s petition for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $350.00.

ERVIN, C. J., DREW and CARLTON, JJ., and RAWLS, District Court Judge, concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents.
No. 00-7430.

#### Dutton *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6785
ROBERT L. WILLIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES S. LANIER; KEITH E. FOUNTAIN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-97-238-5-BR2) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Willis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Willis v. Lanier , No. CA-97-238-5-BR2 (E.D.N.C. May 19, 1997). We dispensewith 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2413]


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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
December 16, 1996, applicable to all workers of James River Corporation 
located in Old Town, Maine. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 69110).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
worker certification. New findings show that the Department incorrectly 
set the impact date at July 22, 1996. The workers at the subject firm 
were covered under an earlier certification, TA-W-29,773, which expired 
November 22, 1996. The Department is amending the certification for 
workers of James River Corporation to set the impact date at November 
22, 1996.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-32,904 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of James River Corporation, Old Town, Maine who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
November 22, 1996 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day of January 1997.
    Dated: January 27, 1997.
Russell T. Kile,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-2413 Filed 1-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>

32.1           Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
               Officer of Ravenwood Bourne, Ltd. pursuant to Section 906 of the
               Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 on Form 10-K of RAVENWOOD BOURNE (the
"Company") for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael
Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ravenwood
Bourne, 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.

Dated: June 15, 2009

                                      /s/Michael Anthony
                                      ----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ Michael Anthony
                                      ----------------------
                                      Michael Anthony
                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jeffrey J. FINKELSTEIN, Appellee.

No. 76-2455.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1977.

*227Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Craig S. Barnard, Asst. Public Defender, and James K. Green, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

Reversed upon authority of *State v. Nelson,*347 So.2d 749, Opinion filed June 17, 1977 (Fla. 4th DCA). See also *Laramore v. State,*342 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ„ concur.
#### Raymond C. SCHNEIDER, Edward M. Saunders and J. Paul Grant, as and constituting the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, a state agency, Appellants, v. Walter C. AIKEN, Francis D’Ambra, D. A. Acquaro, Earle Rabb, L. R. Fleming, Jay Guittierez, and Calvin H. Benefield, licensed Chiropractors, Appellees.

No. 37810.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 8, 1969.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Chastain, Ronald C. LaFace, and Michael Schwartz, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

William G. O’Neill, Ocala, and Joseph C. Jacobs, of Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellees.

CARLTON, Justice.

Appellees, individual chiropractors, and plaintiffs below, instituted a class action for declaratory judgment to determine the validity, meaning, and proper application of regulations concerning advertising promulgated by the appellant Board, defendant below. At the conclusion of the declaratory judgment proceedings, the Honorable Hugh Taylor, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit, decreed that Fla. Stats. §§ 460.11(2) (c) and 460.13(3) (g) 2, F.S.A. were constitutionally valid, but that Fla.Stat. § 460.13(3) (g) 1, F.S.A. and Ch. 100-2, Rule 2.01, Fla.Admin.Code, were invalid and unconstitutional. By direct appeal the appellant Board now contests Judge Taylor’s finding that the above statute and rule are unconstitutional. Fla. Const. Art. V, Section 4(2), F.S.A.

The essence of Judge Taylor’s ruling regarding the statute and rule in question was that the statute, from whence springs the rule, granted certain powers to the Board without explicating appropriate standards according to which the exercise of those powers should be limited. We need not go further here than to say that after careful review of the statute and the rule, we are satisfied that both are constitutionally sound. The discretion granted to the Board by the statute is within reasonable limits, and the rule does not reflect any abuse of that discretion.

*194Appellant also complains of certain other rulings by *Judge*Taylor, but we think that, aside from the constitutionality issue discussed above, all other matters were correctly decided.

Accordingly the decree below is affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions that the cause be remanded for disposition in accordance with our opinion and judgment.

It is so ordered.

DREW, Acting C. J., BOYD, J., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.

THORNAL, J., concurs specially.

THORNAL, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur in judgment of reversal.
Exhibit 32.2

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, 2008  (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.



Date: May 15, 2008

/s/Jeff Scheive

Jeff Scheive

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,422
<SECURITIES>                                    55,517
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,779
<PP&E>                                           2,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                     141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           173
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,960
<SALES>                                          5,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,567
<CGS>                                            2,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,101)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (161)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,959)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33442]


St. Croix Valley Railroad Company--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

    St. Croix Valley Railroad Company (SCV), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and to operate 
approximately 33.3 miles of rail line between Hinckley, MN, milepost 
74.0, and North Branch, MN, milepost 40.7, and 11.1 miles of rail line 
between Brook Park, MN, milepost 58.0, and Mora, MN, milepost 46.9. In 
addition, SCV will acquire incidental overhead trackage rights to 
operate between Hinckley, MN, milepost 74.0, and Brook Park, MN, 
milepost 58.0, and over BNSF's yard tracks in its Hinckley yard.
    The transaction was expected to be consummated on or after the 
August 21, 1997 effective date of the exemption.
    This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 33443, 
RailAmerica, Inc.--Continuance in Control Exemption--St. Croix Valley 
Railroad Company, wherein RailAmerica, Inc. has concurrently filed a 
verified notice to continue in control of SCV upon its becoming a Class 
III rail carrier.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33442, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Gary Laakso, Esq., 301 Yamato Road, Suite 1190, Boca Raton, 
FL 33431.

    Decided: August 26, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23350 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
### Tertiary foraminifera from Saint Croix, Virgin Islands, with a note on the geology

By: J.A. CushmanD.J. Cedarstrom

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp210A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**MELISSA ANN BRODBECK,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 502 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BARBARA A. BRODBECK,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 503 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**PAUL MICHAEL LEAHY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 504 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,650
<INVENTORY>                                     49,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,414
<PP&E>                                          40,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 446,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,012
<BONDS>                                        271,508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           38,440
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   446,415
<SALES>                                        112,598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,598
<CGS>                                           75,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (367)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (183)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 2690.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 1977.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, JONES and ALMON, JJ., concur.
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 Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Eddie Wai Hung Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Eddie Wai Hung Cheung Eddie Wai Hung Cheung Chief Financial Officer Date: August 16, 2007
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

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), John Sharp, Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Quarterly
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly Report), irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 13th day of November, 2006.



/S/ JOHN SHARPJohn SharpVice President, Finance and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2176 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify eligibility for income 

replacement payments for Reserves experiencing extended and frequent 

mobilization for active duty service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 22 (legislative day, DECEMBER 21), 2005 

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify eligibility 

for income replacement payments for Reserves experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for active duty 

service. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INCOME 

4 REPLACEMENT PAYMENTS FOR RESERVES 

5 EXPERIENCING EXTENDED AND FREQUENT 

6 MOBILIZATION FOR ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE. 

7 Subsection (b)(1) of section 910 of title 10, United 

8 States Code, as added by section 614 of the National De-
2 

•S 2176 IS

1 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

2 109–ll), is amended by striking ‘‘18 continuous months 

3 of service’’ and inserting ‘‘six continuous months of serv4 ice’’. 

Æ
# Different generations working together at DSCR in support of the warfighter 

/ Published Sept. 7, 2018
RICHMOND, VA, 
An Understanding and Working Across Generations workshop was held in the McKeever Auditorium on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, Aug 27. 

Nationally recognized learning leader Jeffery Vargas was the keynote speaker. 

Sponsored by Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Command Support Directorate’s Equal Employment Diversity Office, the session was aimed at helping those of different generations learn and understand their generational preferences and what actions they can take, individually and as a team, to improve intergenerational innovation, collaboration, synergy and trust.

The interactive session also involved the larger crowd breaking down into separate smaller groups where they talked about what they like or dislike about their own and different generations.