alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Minor floods of 1938 in the North Atlantic States

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp966

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 11**                            (7417 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 12**                            (7485 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.
#### Ethel Lou JOHNSON, exrx. v. Addie C. WEATHERSPOON.

No. 8675.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1978.

Leon C. Vial, III, Vial, Vial & Lemmon, Hahnville, for plaintiff-appellee.

C. William Bradley, Jr., Reserve, for defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and SCHOTT, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of eviction. She argues that she was denied the opportunity to make out her defense because of excusable tardiness in arriving for trial.

*699The defense was that she is entitled to remain in the premises, which were the separate property of her deceased husband (whose heir’s executrix is plaintiff), because community funds were used to make payments on a mortgage on the property. (The brief suggests her separate funds were also so used.) Alternatively, she sought recovery for half of the community funds so used.

Had defendant presented that defense, eviction should still have been ordered. She would not be entitled to remain in the premises even though her separate funds and community funds were used as alleged. *Pritchett v. Pritchett,*La.App., 4 Cir. 1977, 350 So.2d 1264.

Appellant’s alternative reconvention for a money judgment is an ordinary proceeding rather than summary, and it is therefore not presentable by reconvention to an eviction rule; C.C.P. 1036; *Ward v. Stakelum,*1895, 47 La.Ann. 1546, 18 So. 508. See also *Cepro v. Matulich,*1923, 152 La. 1072, 95 So. 226.

Appellant also argues that her husband’s heir (a daughter by a previous marriage) was never placed in possession of the house in question, and therefore her executrix has no right to demand eviction. But the heir (other than a particular legatee) is seized of right at the moment of the decedent’s death, C.C. 940, and therefore does not have to be put in possession, art. 941, and the decedent’s right of possession continues in the heir, art. 942.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2019

b1021 

# Order

Clerk October 29, 2019

156843

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156843

COA: 331302

Genesee CC: 15

- 037130

- FC

ANDREW FARLEY, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 29, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v

Beck (Docket No. 152934) and People v Dixon

- Bey (Docket No. 156746). On order of the

Court, Beck having been decided on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), and leave to

appeal having been denied in Dixon

- Bey o n July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the

application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to

appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to

the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Beck

.
Exhibit 31.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Soenen, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FTD, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



| | Date: September 24, 2004 |  | /s/MICHAEL J. SOENEN
| | ------------------------ |  | --------------------
| |                          |  | Name:               
| |                          |  | Title:              

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,903
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,490
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,903
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,448)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.003)


</TABLE>
#### Nicholas ACRIDAS, Appellant, v. E. J. GRAY and N. Gray, d/b/a Greystone Hotel, Appellee.

No. 68-1039.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 29, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-578

In Re: HENRY BATISTE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Batiste, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Batiste brought this mandamus petition seeking an order

directing a state court to enter an order on his motion for default

judgment and also seeking an order directing the Attorney General

and the state court to comply with South Carolina procedure on receipt of post conviction applications. Additionally, Batiste complains that he was erroneously indicted, unlawfully convicted, and

received ineffective assistance of counsel; he seeks injunctive

relief, a new trial, or release from imprisonment.

To the extent that Batiste requests this court to order the

state court and the Attorney General to act, we lack jurisdiction.

See Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988). Furthermore,

because mandamus is not a substitute for collateral review of criminal convictions, we find that Batiste cannot bring his additional

claims. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987)

(mandamus is only appropriate when there are no other means by

which petitioner could seek the requested relief). Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny

mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of EnergyConnect Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the twelve months ended January 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:
 
 The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 18th day of March 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Kevin R. Evans
 Kevin R. Evans
 Chief Executive Officer
255 La. 803

#### AMERICAN CREOSOTE COMPANY, Inc. v. George J. SPRINGER.

No. 50354.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1970.

In re: American Creosote Works applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 232 So.2d 532.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel 'for plaintiff and defendant be notified.”
#### Howard A. HAMPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 6, 1978.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, and Ken Glover, Research Assistant, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court but we agree with appellant that the phrase “at hard labor” in his sentence is improper. *Brooks*v. *State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court for correction of sentence and appellant need not be present at that time.

SCHEB, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
| INTEGRITY MUTUALFUNDS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES | Exhibit 31.2 |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------|

CERTIFICATION

I, Heather Ackerman, certify that: 

1.            I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of IntegrityMutual Funds, Inc.; 

2.            Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport; 

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report; 

4.            I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a)            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and 

c)            disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant'sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financialreporting; and 

5.            I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditorsand the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)            all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial data and have identified for the registrant's auditorsany material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b)           any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal controls.
| Date:  March 16, 2007 | By /s/ Heather Ackerman |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                       |                    |
|                       | Heather Ackerman        |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |
**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 Quarterly Report of ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Petty,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations 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 or its staff upon request.








December
                19, 2006
            /s/
                Robert PettyRobert
                PettyChief
                Executive Officer
#### Patsy STEWART v. Vinal James STEWART.

No. 11639.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1977.

*496Joel B. Dickinson, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellee, Patsy Stewart.

Donn Moss, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellant, Vinal James Stewart.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

This is an appeal by defendant from an award for alimony pendente lite and child support.

The issue is the amount of the award.

We amend and affirm.

Defendant’s attack is two-fold: he has not sufficient means to pay the amount awarded, and his wife and child do not need the amount awarded.

Defendant admits to a projected adjusted gross income of $4,843.96 per month. He deducts projected taxes of $1,695.38, personal expenses of $2,977.63 and business expenses of $810.00 to arrive at a net monthly deficit. The personal expenses, however, include interest and principal payment on notes of $1,525.08 and the note of $187.50 on the automobile which the court ordered the plaintiff to pay if she kept the car. Defendant stated he had a net worth of approximately $225,000.00, included in which was about $45,000.00 in notes receivable. We can find no error in the court’s finding that defendant was able to pay the amount awarded. *Privette v. Privette*(La. App. 1st Cir. 1976) 335 So.2d 547; *Nelson v. Nelson*(La.App. 1st Cir. 1976) 335 So.2d 787.

Defendant argues strenuously that the award is based upon a standard of living not achieved by them while living together. The testimony as to the average cost is varying but there is unequivocal testimony that the standard of living had been elevated in the immediate past. We find no error in the Court’s finding on this point.

In her testimony, however, Mrs. Stewart stated that from the $1,818.50 she first estimated as her need, should be deducted $200.00 for child care and $150.00 for educational expenses. It was established that $50.00 for health and accident insurance was deducted from her salary the net of which was about $500.00. We therefore compute from her own testimony that the need is for $900.00 per month. In addition, we are convinced that the figure of $250.00 per month for clothing is an overestimation, even under the improved living standard enjoyed by the parties immediately before the separation. We therefore believe that an award of $800.00 per month is ample under the circumstances.

Maintaining approximately the same proportion as employed by the trial court, we allocate $300.00 to child support and $500.00 to alimony pendente lite.

For these reasons the judgment appealed from is amended to order that defendant pay plaintiff the sum of $800.00 per month, allocated as $500.00 alimony pendente lite and $300.00 as child support.

The costs are to be borne by the defendant.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25797]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee; Committee Management; 
Renewal

    The Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Science has 
determined that renewal of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory 
Committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with 
the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science 
Foundation (NFS), by 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This determination follows 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration. Authority for the Advisory Committees will 
expire on October 1, 1999, unless renewed.
    The purpose of the committee is to provide advice on a continuing 
basis to both the Department of Energy and the National Science 
Foundation on priorities for basic nuclear science research in the 
United States.

    For more information, please contact Dr. Bradley Keister, 
Program Director, Nuclear Physics, Room 1015, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 306-1891.

    Dated: September 24, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25797 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 4.3(A)

                                                   Form of Certificate of Trust



                            CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                    Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 200_-_

          This Certificate of Trust of Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 200_-_
(the "Trust"), dated as of __________ __, 200_ is being duly executed and
filed by WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, a Delaware banking corporation, as trustee,
to form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del.
C.ss.3801 et seq.).

          4. Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is Chase
Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 200_-_.

          5. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware is WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Rodney Square
North, 1100 North Market Square, Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001, Attn:
Corporate Trust Administration.

          6. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of the date
filed.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the sole trustee of the
Trust, has executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first above
written.


                                      WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not
                                      in its individual capacity but solely
                                      as trustee of the Trust


                                      By: ----------------------------------
                                          Name:
                                          Title:
#### Frank J. MYRICK v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49840.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 10, 1977.

Fraiser, Burgoon, Henson & Abraham, James W. Burgoon, Jr., Greenwood, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Russell M. COFIELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.