alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rose Inez DOUCET, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2879.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1970.

Young & Burson, by I. J. Burson, Jr., Eunice, for defendant-appellant.

Shotwell, Brown & Sperry, by E. C. Stout, Monroe, and Garland, Dejean & Berggreen, by H. B. Dejean, Jr., Opelousa, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and MILLER, JJ-

SAVOY, Judge.

This expropriation suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with the companion case of Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company v. Miller, 229 So.2d 182 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969), decided also on this date.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case, the judgment of the district court is amended so as to increase the award to defendant, Rose Inez Doucet, from $492.80 to $1,266.80, together with legal interest on *188all unpaid amounts from the date of the taking, until paid. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at plaintiff-appellee’s costs.

Amended and affirmed.

HOOD, J., dissents for reasons assigned in 229 So.2d 182 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969).

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

HOOD, J., is of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 15, 2013

NO. 03-13-00231-CV

J. T., Appellant

v.

Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD 

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

order: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the order of the district court 

is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
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 on Form 10-KSB of APO Health,  Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Dr. Jan Stahl,
Chief  Executive  Officer and acting  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:

      (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/  Dr. Jan Stahl
                                                       ------------------
                                                       Dr. Jan Stahl
                                                       CEO and acting CFO
Date:  February 25, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2036 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2036

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 320 High Street in Clinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Raymond J. 
                         Salmon Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2005

Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Kerry) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 320 High Street in Clinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Raymond J. 
                         Salmon Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. RAYMOND J. SALMON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 320 High Street in Clinton, Massachusetts, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Raymond J. Salmon Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Raymond J. 
Salmon Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Donna L. SCHWARTZER, Albert Schwartzer and Arthur Pokorny, Respondents.

No. 38336.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 15, 1970.

W. Thomas Spencer of Spencer & Taylor, Miami, for petitioner.

Fuller & Brumer and Kenneth L. Rys-kamp, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 217 So.2d 843, which opinion is as follows:

> “PER CURIAM.

> “This appeal presents the same issue which has previously been dealt with in Ringenberger v. General Accident F. & L. Assur. Corp., Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 376; Sellers v. Government Employees Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 879; and Morrison Assurance Company, Inc. v. Polak, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So.2d 484 (opinion filed in this court December 17, 1968).

> “In the last cited decision we followed the reasoning set forth in the Sellers decision and noted possible conflict with the Ringenberger decision. Appellee has unsuccessfully attempted to distinguish the present case from the Sellers case. We therefore reverse the declaratory judgment on the authority of the Sellers and Morrison decisions.

> “Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the appellants.”

*103Since the filing of the petition for writ of certiorari in this case, the Court has decided the point of law in question in Morrison Assurance Company, Inc. v. Po-lak, 230 So.2d 6, opinion filed December 17, 1969, quashing the decision of the District Court which was relied on by the District Court in the instant case. Also, this Court has denied certiorari, on the basis of the *Morrison Assurance Company*opinion, in the case of Ringenberger v. General Accident F. & L. Assur. Corp., 232 So.2d 381, opinion filed March 18, 1970.

Accordingly, petition for writ of certio-rari is granted, the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for disposition not inconsistent with the views expressed in the *Morrison Assurance Company*case, supra.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2




WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Quarterly Report of China 3C Group and its subsidiaries
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, Jian Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies,
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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.




November
16, 2009






/s/ Jian Zhang





Jian
Zhang


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

!ir. ceorge Ii. aheppard 

Comptroller of Publio Aocounts 

Auotiq, Texts 

Dear ~Sir:’ 0plnioa No. 0 

WI out of 

of a 3 

of :;‘ub 

Se rooeived your 

questin our oginlon on a 

r80tftt - 

Publio Safety pay the traveling 

priated to that departzmat, of 

0en sent to Illlnola to roturn this 

non’s Annolxtod Civil Statutes, 

hereby oreeted a De?artmnt OS Publio 

Safsty of the Utate of Taxas, hereinaSter designated 

08 ‘the Depart;aent,~ in whioh is vested the enforoemnt 

of the laws pcoteotin3 the public! safety and providing 

for the prevention and deteotion of orlas. . . .” 
Er. George H. ShopQard, page B 

Artfole 4413 (4) of aafd statute8 reada a6 followe; 

- “(1) mo Co.3Aasion shall rornulate plane and 

~01IoIes for tha eniorOa!zent of the orlminal laws and 

of the trnffio ahd safety laws OS the State, tha Dreventioz oi or5.m, the detedtloa n?lB ap:>rehenslon or 

violators of the laws, and for tke eduoation OS the 

oltle?ns of the State In the Dromtloa or publlo 

safety and law obaervanoe. 

" . . . 

Smite Bill Ho. 427, 40th Legislature, Regular 

SewIon, page 197, BEZIM beiry the departnantal appropriation 

bill, reveala that the La&slatura -de an appropriation to 

the Departient of Rub110 Safety ior travel and tramportation 

Said Senate Rlll, at pages 220-229, ln efl'sot 

~%%?i‘tIlat ne~bore OS the various state depart&ants, &a 

enumroted therein, may travel out of the State on State 

buekess ?urQosoe a.ti shall reoeive thelr.travelIng axpenaes 

therein lnourrod. In Opinion No. X-640, the Attorney oBneral*a 

Department advised the Dsprt&ent of Publio Safety and the 

Comptroller of Publio Aocounts that the trip in question 

wan ior State buainclss purpoBe8. 

It Is olsarly the duty OS the Department or ?uIjllo. 

%fetp to enforoe the oriainal lawn ?.nd to deteot and oppreSend violators of the law. The Legislature has provided that 

department with an apprcprlatloa nlth Wzloh to pny travelin;J 

expenses incurred in conmotion with We ~orformnOe of these 

duties. 

\Te oonclude, thereiore, that the Department of Pub110 

Sarety 1s authorized to expend,lts funds to pay the traveling 

expenses 3f.a Texas Ranger lnourred In tha aforamentlonod trip. 

Yours very trUl7
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe A. CATANESE.

No. 60482.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 19, 1977.

In re: Joe A. Catanese applying for writ of review.

Writ denied. No showing has been made that the trial judge abused his discretion.

TATE and DENNIS, JJ., concur.

Defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal in event of conviction.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCSC-15

No. 259A20

Filed 12 March 2021

PAMELA LAUZIERE, Employee

v.

STANLEY MARTIN COMMUNITIES, LLC, Employer, and AMERICAN ZURICH 

INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, 844 S.E.2d 9 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020), reversing and remanding an

opinion and award filed on 22 May 2018 by the North Carolina Industrial 

Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 February 2021.

Lennon, Camak & Bertics, PLLC, by S. Neal Camak and Michael W. Bertics, 

for plaintiff-appellee.

Lewis & Roberts, P.L.L.C., by Bryan L. Cantley and Mallory E. Lidaka, for 

defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1 The Court of Appeals shall remand to the full Commission for further 

consideration in accordance with 11 N.C. Admin. Code 23A.0704 (2020). The full 

Commission shall review the award and as it deems necessary, reconsider the 

evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and, if 

proper, amend the award.

AFFIRMED.
LAUZIERE V. STANLEY MARTIN CMTYS., LLC

2021-NCSC-15

Opinion of the Court

Justice BERGER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2064 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 334
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2064

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 122 South Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana, as the Malcolm 
                 Melville ``Mac'' Lawrence Post Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2005

  Mr. Lugar (for himself and Mr. Bayh) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           December 16, 2005

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 122 South Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana, as the Malcolm 
                 Melville ``Mac'' Lawrence Post Office.

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

SECTION 1. MALCOLM MELVILLE ``MAC'' LAWRENCE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 122 South Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Malcolm Melville `Mac' Lawrence Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Malcolm 
Melville `Mac' Lawrence Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 334

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 2064

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 122 South Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana, as the Malcolm 
                 Melville ``Mac'' Lawrence Post Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 16, 2005

                       Reported without amendment
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BUBBAS EAST COAST RODS & CUSTOMS OF FLORIDA, INC., 

a Florida corporation,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL LARKINS and GREG LARKINS,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-606

[November 16, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser and Edward A. Garrison, Judges; L.T. 

Case No. 50-2016-CA-000566-XXXX-MB.

Carlos M. Recio, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Gene D. Lipscher of Gene D. Lipscher, P.A., Jupiter, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 4.5



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 Plaintree Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of 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 operations of the Company.



Date: October 10, 2007





Per:

Name: David Watson

Title: President,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certifications will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates them by reference.
Exhibit
32.2











WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Quarterly Report of China 3C Group and its subsidiaries
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Jian Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies,
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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





August
      14, 2009/s/ Jian ZhangJian
      ZhangChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial
Officer)
### Geologic reconnaissance and test-well drilling, Cordova, Alaska

By: Kenneth Lyle Walters

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1779A

#### 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.
Exhibit 10(b)















	EXHIBIT 10(b)




	CONSENT OF SHEARMAN & STERLING






	     We hereby consent to the reference to our firm included in
      Part A and Part B of Mercury Master Trust, filed as part of Amendment No.
      11 to the Registration Statement (File No. 811-09049).




	 	/s/ 	Shearman & Sterling
	 	 	
      

    
	 	 	Shearman & Sterling







	New York, New York

      January 28, 2002
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Terri Hourigan,   certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Asset Development, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American Asset Development, Inc.



|                     |  |        |  |                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | By:    |  | /S/    TERRI HOURIGAN                                                                      
|Date: March 14, 2011 |  | Name:  |  | Ms. Terri hourigan                                                                         
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors andChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
July 22, 2011

Dear Mr. McGraw:

Reference your correspondence dated March 25, 2011 and in connection with Life Flight recent hoist 

training event I find that one of the specified segments that defines a hoist operation is problematic 

during training.

The operational segment that is described as: “repositioning flight to the nearest suitable landing zone 

to land the rotorcraft and load the rescue target in the rotorcraft”, adds significant time and operational 

costs to training with little benefit toward proficiency related to the critical pilot skill sets necessary to 

conduct safe and effective hoist operations.

Lowering and lifting loads is performed multiple times in almost every phase of hoist training. Landing, 

loading and departing are tasks that are performed multiple times on a daily basis. Adding this phase to 

hoist training is burdensome and is a skill set that is accomplished and evaluated in a number of arenas.

Respectfully request that this phase/operational segment be deleted from the definition of a “Hoist 

Operation” for the purposes of currency (20 separate hoist operations).

Thank you in advance for your favorable consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

William E. Butts

Director of Aviation Operations

Intermountain Life Flight
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case Nos. 4:13-CR-00117

: 4:14-CR-00074

:

v. : (Judge Brann)

:

RODGER KENT WILLIAMS, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

November 24, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with a Memorandum of this same date, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF Nos. 49 & 10) is DENIED.

2. Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. 50 & 11) is also

DENIED as moot.

3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to notify Petitioner of this disposition. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cr-00117-MWB Document 61 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 1