alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania *v.*Kuemmerle.

Argued October 16, 1933.

Before Tbexl.ee, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*459
      *Franklin E. Barr,*Assistant District Attorney, and with him *Charles F. Kelley,*District Attorney, for appellant.

*G. Von Phul Jones,*for appellee.

February 1, 1934:

Opinion by

James, J.,

The defendant was indicted on September 20, 1932 for having on the 2nd day of October, 1928 aided and abetted one Alexander D. Bobinson, vice-president and treasurer of the Northwestern Trust Company, in the embezzlement, abstraction and wilful misapplication of certain funds of the Northwestern Trust Company. Defendant was not an officer, director, receiver, superintendent, manager, broker, attorney, agent, employee, or member of said banking institution. Defendant moved to quash and the motion was sustained, from which order an appeal was taken by the Commonwealth.

The same question raised in this appeal is involved in the appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Russell H. Foster, 111 Pa. Superior Ct. 451, No. 356, October Term, 1933, in which an opinion has this day been filed sustaining the action of the court below in quashing the indictment. For the reasons therein set forth the judgment is affirmed.
#### Robert D. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. Robin JOHNSTON, Appellee.

No. 70-500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### MURRAY M. SHELDON, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DADE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### James RYAN, Appellant, v. CITY of ST. PETERSBURG, Appellee.

No. 68-607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Aug. 15, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of O.J.P., a Child

Appellate case number: 01-21-00163-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-25857

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant, 

C.D.P. Appellant has filed her second motion for extension of time to file an appellant’s brief, 

requesting that this Court extend the deadline for filing the appellant’s brief to June 14, 2021. The 

motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on June 14, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), 

(d).

Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship, the Court is 

required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of March 29, 2021, the date the 

notice of appeal was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX. R. JUD.

ADMIN. 6.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___June 10, 2021____
**Exhibit 3.1(d)**

**AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**TULLY’S COFFEE CORPORATION**

Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 23B.10.060 of the Washington Business Corporation Act, the undersigned adopts the followingAmendments to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Tully’s Coffee Corporation as filed on October 26, 1999, and as amended on August 8, 2000. 

**FIRST:** The name of the Corporation is TULLY’S COFFEE CORPORATION. 

**SECOND:** The following Amendments to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation were adopted by the Board of Directors of theCorporation on October 6, 2004. The Amendments were duly approved and adopted by the Shareholders of the Corporation on December 9, 2004, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 23B.10.030 and 23B.10.040 as follows: 

Article 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: 

**ARTICLE II. SHARES**

**2.1 Authorized Capital.**

The total number of shares which the Corporation is authorized to issue is 163,500,000, consisting of 120,000,000 shares of Common Stockwithout par value and 43,500,000 shares of Preferred Stock without par value. The Common Stock is subject to the rights and preferences of the Preferred Stock as hereinafter set forth. 

Article 2 is hereby further amended to read as follows: 

**2.8 Series A Preferred Stock.**

The rights, preferences, privileges and restrictionsgranted to and imposed on the Series A Preferred Stock, which shall consist of 31,000,000 shares, are as set forth below: 

The remainder ofthis Section 2.8 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

**THIRD:** The foregoing Amendment does not provide for an exchange, reclassification, orcancellation of issued shares. 

**FOURTH:** Except as modified herein, the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation ofTully’s Coffee Corporation as filed on October 26, 1999, and as amended on August 8, 2000, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

I certify that I am an officer of TULLY’S COFFEE CORPORATION, and am authorized to execute the foregoing Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation on behalf of the Corporation. 

DATED: December 14, 2004. 

 
TULLY’S COFFEE CORPORATION
/s/ Kristopher S. Galvin
By: Kristopher S. GalvinIts: Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
 

- 2 -
#### Alexander COHEN, Appellant, v. Mary COHEN, Appellee.

No. 68-842.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 22, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., d/b/a )

FLIGHTLINE FIRST, )

)

Complainant, )

)

v. ) DOCKET NO. 16-11-01

)

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION AND )

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO )

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF )

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD )

OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE )

MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKEFRONT )

AIRPORT; NON-FLOOD PROTECTION )

ASSET MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, )

AS SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT and )

ORLEANS PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT, )

DIVISION OF NON-FLOOD ASSETS, )

)

Respondents. )

COMPLAINANT’S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

TO RESPOND TO THE ANSWER OF THE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

COMES NOW, Flightline Ground, Inc., Complainant in the above-captioned matter, 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.19(a) and moves to extend the time to respond to the Answer of the 

Non-Flood Protection Asset Management Authority, as successor to the Board of Commissioners 

of the Orleans Parish Levee District and Orleans Parish Levee District Division of Non-Flood 

Assets (the “Management Authority”) based upon the following:

1.

A matter arose beyond the control of Complainant’s counsel precluding a complete 

Response to the Answer of the Management Authority being served by Monday, April 4, 2011. 
2

2.

Complainant’s counsel, in an e-mail to opposing counsel of March 27, 2010, asked if 

they objected to Complainant having a short extension until April 7, 2011.

3.

Neither counsel for the Management Authority nor counsel for the Louisiana Department 

of Transportation and Development oppose or object to an extension whereby the Complainant 

may file its Response to the Answer of the Management Authority by Thursday, April 7, 2011.

 WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that the Complainant have an extension of time to 

respond to the Answer of the Management Authority until Monday, April 4, 2011.

Respectfully submitted, this 28th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

____________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Georgia Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant’s Second Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 

the Answer of the Management Authority has been served upon Brandon Brown, Esq., Counsel for the 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development via electronic mail at brandon.brown@la.gov

and also that a copy of same has been served upon Charles Curtis, Esq. , by electronic mail at 

ccurtis@metzgerlawfirm.com, counsel for the Non-Flood Protection Asset Management Authority (the 

“authority”) and also Gerard Metzger, Esq., counsel for the Authority be electronic mail at 

gerry@metzgerlawfirm.com.

This the 28th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00372-CV

In the Interest of B.S., a Child §

§

§

§

From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-104564-17)

February 15, 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
**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 GlobeTrac Inc. (“GlobeTrac”) on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jim Pratt, President,
Chief Executive Officer of GlobeTrac and a member of the Board of Directors,
certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of GlobeTrac.
   */s/
Jim Pratt*
 Jim Pratt
 Chief
Executive Officer
   May 12,
2005
  
  **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 GlobeTrac Inc. (“GlobeTrac”) on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John daCosta,
Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of GlobeTrac, certify,
pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
condition and result of operations of GlobeTrac.
   
   */s/
John daCosta*
 John
daCosta
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 May 12,
2005
Exhibit 27(1)

[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER] 1,000
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1995
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1995
[CASH]                                           2,668
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   16,009
[ALLOWANCES]                                     1,172
[INVENTORY]                                        206
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                23,426
[PP&E]                                         436,887
[DEPRECIATION]                                 104,993
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 519,809
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           54,851
[BONDS]                                        229,479
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                         5,137
[OTHER-SE]                                     162,230
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   519,809
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               236,020
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  134,372
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               (1,942)
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              31,138
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 75,579
[INCOME-TAX]                                    31,819
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             43,760
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                  2,819
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    46,579
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                        0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
Anitual Report 

to the 

President 

and the 

Congress 

WilliamS. Cohen 

Secretary of Defense 

1998 
For 18 years, the U.S. Freedom of Navigation program 

has ensured that excessive coastal state claims over the 

world's oceans and airspace are repeatedly challenged. 

By diplomatic protests and operational assertions, the 

United States has insisted upon adherence by the 

nations of the world to the international law of the sea, 

as reflected in the UN Law of the Sea Convention. A 

significant majority of countries (over 120) are now 

Parties to the Convention, and there is an encouraging 

trend toward the rolling-back of excessive maritime 

claims. Nonetheless, some coastal states continue to 

assert maritime claims inconsistent with international 

law, which left unchallenged would limit navigational 

freedoms vital to U.S. national security and essential to 

peaceful uses of the world's oceans. 

In FY 1997, U.S. armed forces conducted operational 

I-1 

Appendix I 

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION 

assertions challenging the excessive maritime claims 

listed in the accompanying table. In addition, military 

vessels and aircraft frequently conducted routine 

transits through international straits, such as the Straits 

of Gibraltar, Hormuz, and Malacca. Air and surface 

units also transited the Indonesian Archipelago in 

archipelagic sea lane passage on 73 occasions and 

transited the Philippine Archipelago by exercising high 

seas freedoms, transit passage, and innocent passage, as 

applicable, on 4 7 occasions. Combined with robust and 

highly visible routine operations by U.S. forces on, 

over, and under the world's oceans, and scrupulous 

adherence by the United States to the navigational 

provisions of the UN Law of the Sea Convention, 

Freedom of Navigation operatio~ have continued to 

underscore the U.S. commitment to a stable legal 

regime for the world's oceans.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Empyrean Communications, Inc.., aNevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endingSeptember 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Robert L. Lee,  President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 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; and 

 

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

 

 

***/s/ Robert L. Lee                           ***

Robert L. Lee, President

Dated: November 19, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVNIA 

JEFFREY M. BROWN, : CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00992-MWB-GBC 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 : (Judge Brann) 

 v. : 

 : 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, : (Magistrate Judge Cohn) 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER 

November 10, 2016 

In accordance with the memorandum opinion issued this date, 

It is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED IN 

FULL. ECF No. 21. 

2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

3. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner 

and against the Plaintiff. 

4. The Clerk is further directed to close the case file. 

Case 4:15-cv-00992-MWB Document 25 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 2
BY THE COURT: 

 

/s Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00992-MWB Document 25 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38642-38643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

Process To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 
for the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 
Foothills West Transportation Access Project

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Extension of scoping comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In the May 20, 2011 issue of the Federal Register (76 FR 
98:29218-29219), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published its 
intent to prepare a DEIS to identify and analyze the potential impacts 
associated with the proposed Foothills West Transportation Access 
Project (Foothills Project). In that notice, the Corps stated the 
scoping comment period was to end on July 5, 2011. Instructions for 
submitting comments are provided in the May 20, 2011, Federal Register 
notice. In response to several requests, the Corps has decided to 
extend the initial scoping comment period to July 26, 2011.

[[Page 38643]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa Riordan, Corps Regulatory 
Division, Fairbanks, Alaska at (907) 474-2166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

    Dated: June 23, 2011.
Melissa C. Riordan,
Project Manager, Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2011-16543 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Pascal J. MARCELLO.

No. 61685.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 28, 1978.

In re: Pascal J. Marcello applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction. As to Assignment of Error No. 1, we have construed relator’s contention as an asserted error for denial of pre-trial discovery.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DANNY KEITH MERTSOCK, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2363

:

Plaintiff : (Chief Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

BRADLEY BUCCHOLZ, :

:

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2016, upon consideration of the report 

(Doc. 14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending dismissal of 

the above-captioned action upon receipt of correspondence (Doc. 13) from plaintiff 

Danny Keith Mertsock (“Mertsock”) indicating that he no longer wishes to pursue 

this case, and the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson that dismissal is 

appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(I), see FED. R.

CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 4:15-cv-02363-CCC Document 15 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 4.12  ENGLISH LANGUAGE SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, DATED AS OF JANUARY 25, 2011, AMONG ANDRADE GUTIERREZ TELECOMUNICAÇÕES LTDA., BRATEL BRASIL S.A. AND, AS INTERVENING PARTIES, PASA PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A., PORTUGAL TELECOM, SGPS S.A., AG TELECOM PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A. AND LUXEMBURGO PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.  ·Sale of Shares and Price:Andrade Gutierrez Telecomunicações Ltda. (the Seller) agreed to sell to Bratel Brasil S.A. (the Buyer), an affiliate of Portugal Telecom, 22,937,934 ordinary shares, or 4.69% of the voting and total share capital, of Pasa Participações S.A. (Pasa), the parent company of AG Telecom Participações S.A. (AG Telecom) and Luxemburgo Participações S.A. (Luxemburgo, together with AG Telecom, AG), both shareholders of Telemar Participações S.A. (TmarPart), for R$ 212,142,540.50.  The sale was subject to a number of conditions, including the concurrent acquisitions and/or subscriptions of shares of Pasa, EDSP75 Participações S.A., TmarPart, Tele Norte Leste Participações S.A. and Telemar Norte Leste S.A. (Telemar) so as to guarantee that the Buyer would hold a minimum direct and indirect interest in Telemar of 22.38%.  ·Indemnification:The Seller agreed to indemnify the Buyer for liabilities arising from breaches of representations and warranties, certain liabilities of Pasa and AG stemming from facts, acts or omissions that took place up to the date of the closing (other than those identified in the applicable financial statements) and dispossession of or defects in the title to the shares. Sellers indemnification obligation is limited to a five-year period and it is capped at the acquisition price (except with respect to breach of certain representations and warranties and the dispossession of or defects in the title to the shares which shall follow their respective statute of limitation and it is not subject to a cap). The Buyer agreed to indemnify the Seller for breaches of representations and warranties relating to the Buyer.  ·Representations, Warranties and Agreements:The contract contained customary representations, warranties and agreements typical of merger and acquisition transactions.  ·Termination:The contract allowed the Buyer and the Seller to terminate it under specified circumstances.  It also provides for automatic termination in certain extraordinary circumstances, such as bankruptcy of any of the parties.  The agreement was not terminated, and the transaction closed on March 28, 2011.  ·Governing Law and Dispute Resolution:The agreement is governed by Brazilian law.  Any dispute under the agreement is to be resolved through arbitration in Brazil.  Portugal Telecom will provide a copy of the Portuguese language agreement to the Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.