alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alphonso STUART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 75-1172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 21, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

*499ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on October 26, 1976 affirming the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed June 8, 1978, 360 So.2d 406, and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this courts judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on December 21, 1976 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed October 26, 1976, 339 So.2d 659, is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to discharge the appellant.

It is so ordered.

Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16(b), Florida Appellate Rules).
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-76526, 33-80454, 33-88302, 333-2818, 333-07457, 333-62517, 333-62983, 333-64139, 333-68161, 333-49004, 333-61412, 333-76826) of Rural/Metro Corporation of our report dated September 21, 2006, except forthe effects of the restatement discussed in Note 3, the effects of the change in accounting discussed in Note 2, and the event of default and related waiver discussed in the last sentence of Note 4 and second paragraphs of Notes 11 and 22 to theconsolidated financial statements, and the matter discussed in the penultimate paragraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, as to which the date is March 22, 2007, relating to the consolidated financialstatements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Phoenix, Arizona 

March 22, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

165 

CA 16-00080 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ. 

 

ACEA MOSEY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

LAURA CUMMINGS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF ERIE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

CONNORS LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN T. LOSS OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (JEREMY C. TOTH OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y.

Devlin, J.), entered May 11, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed

from, granted that part of the motion of defendant for a protective

order with respect to the demand concerning documents from the County

Executive.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Mosey v County of Erie ([appeal No. 1] ___

AD3d ___ [Mar. 24, 2017]).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Shirley HEBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence A. MESTAYER, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3526.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1971.

Gold, Hall, Hammill & Little by James Davis, Alexandria, and Theodore M. Haik, Jr., New Iberia, for plaintiff-appellant.

Henry A. Bernard, Jr., New Iberia, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of custody.

The facts of this case are set forth in the companion case, Hebert v. Mestayer, 251 So.2d 66 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1971), decided this date.

Affirmed.

DOMENGEAUX, J., concurs.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard J. Westin, Chief Executive Officer of Agemark Corporation (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which
         this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully
         complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.

Dated: September 19, 2003
/s/ RICHARD J. WESTIN
-----------------------
Richard J. Westin
Chief Executive Officer

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.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of iParty Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certify that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August  12, 2003 | /s/ SAL PERISANO                      |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                         | Sal Perisano                          |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer               |
|                         |                                  |
| Date:  August  12, 2003 | /s/ PATRICK FARRELL                   |
|                         | Patrick Farrell                       |
|                         | President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Vincent H. CONBOY, and other taxpayers of the City of Naples not named but made parties as members of a class, Appellants, v. The CITY OF NAPLES, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida; Bert L. Pinkston, as the Tax Assessor of and for the City of Naples, and as the Tax Collector of and for the City of Naples; Port Royal, Inc., a Florida corporation; and Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 69-170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 14, 1970.

Robert M. Brake, Coral Gables, for appellants.

David C. Spingler, Naples, for appellees, The City of Naples and Bert L. Pinkston.

Darrey A. Davis of Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for appel-lee, Port Royal, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the trial court is affirmed. In regard to the cost judgment, costs are taxable to the appellant at the discretion of the trial judge. See 8 Fla.Jur., Cost § 8, p. 9.

Section 90.231(2), Florida Statutes, 1967, F.S.A., states that:

> “Any expert or skilled witness who shall have testified in any cause shall be allowed a witness fee including the cost of any exhibits used by such witness in the amount of ten dollars per hour or such amount as the trial judge may deem reasonable, and the same shall be taxed as costs.”

It does *not*state that the cost of time for preparation of the expert witness’s opinion is not includable in the costs.

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

 This schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from Financial
Statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2000, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such form 10QSB for  quarterly  period ended  September
30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                      1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                       40,607
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                20,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  53,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            126,312
<PP&E>                                       31,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                7,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              949,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        56,655
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                  2,102,860
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                949,783
<SALES>                                      57,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             77,808
<CGS>                                        20,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               536,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            7,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (466,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (466,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (466,869)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.19)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAN L. VACEK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 08-221 Erie

v. )

)

PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT )

BOARD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on August 6, 2008, and

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 111], filed on

August 3, 2010, recommended that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 86] filed by

Defendants Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, Joseph A. Massa, Jr., Esq.,

Magisterial District Judge Dominick D. DiPaolo, Magisterial District Judge Suzanne C.

Mack, and Magisterial District Court First Ward be granted. It was further

recommended that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 105] filed by the Pennsylvania State

Police, Lt. Michael Gillelan, Ashley E. Wheeler, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle

Department and Janet L. Dolan be granted. The parties were allowed fourteen (14)

days from the date of service to file objections. No objections were filed. After de novo

review of the complaint and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendations, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 24 day of August, 2010; 

th

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 86] filed by

Defendants Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, Joseph A. Massa, Jr., Esq.,

Magisterial District Judge Dominick D. DiPaolo, Magisterial District Judge Suzanne C.

Mack, and Magisterial District Court First Ward is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 105] filed by the

Case 1:08-cv-00221-SJM-SPB Document 112 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 2
Pennsylvania State Police, Lt. Michael Gillelan, Ashley E. Wheeler, the Pennsylvania

Motor Vehicle Department and Janet L. Dolan is GRANTED. The Clerk of Courts is

directed to close this case. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 111] of Magistrate Judge Baxter,

filed on August 3, 2010 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

2

Case 1:08-cv-00221-SJM-SPB Document 112 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

MAY 09 2012 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sirs: 

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169-6901 

Flight Inspection Services (FIS) Operating Certificate# RU3A249N, has changed name 

from "Aviation System Standards, Operating Certificate# RU3A796U". 

FIS requests an extension of exemption No. 9944, as amended, and to reflect the new name. 

Exemption No. 9944 from 14 CFR section Part: 61.3 (a) and (c), allows FIS to issue 

facsimile pilot certificates and medical certificates to crewmembers whose certificates have 

been lost, destroyed, or misplaced. 

There have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and 

safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. We feel continued operation 

under the provisions of the exemption would be in the public interest. 

Additionally, we request that the exemption period be granted for a period of three years. 

Sincerely, 

't~rector 

~~~ of Operations 

Flight Inspection Services
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53609-53610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4745-000]


Alpena Power Marketing, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

October 8, 1997.
    On September 25, 1997, Alpena Power Marketing, L.L.C. (APM) 
petitioned the Commission for acceptance of APM's Rate Schedule FERC 
Tariff No. 1; the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the 
authority to sell electricity at market based rates; and waiver of 
certain Commission regulations.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 21, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make

[[Page 53610]]

protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27180 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,654,423
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,364,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,202,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,368,145
<PP&E>                                           2,323,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,603,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,401,739
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            11,782
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,695,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,151,752
<SALES>                                          7,858,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,931,969
<CGS>                                            6,877,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,249,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,467,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (267,140)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,517,122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,517,122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,517,122)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.75)
        


</TABLE>
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 Marimba, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew Chmyz, Vice President, Finance and 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, to my knowledge, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented in the Report.



|             |  |  |  |                                                                 
|------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|May 14, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Andrew Chmyz                                             
|             |  |  |  |                                                                 
|             |  |  |  | Andrew Chmyz Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of iParty Corp (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersignedPresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 13, 2003 | /s/ Patrick  Farrell                   |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Patrick  Farrell                       |
|                     | President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54790-54791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27943]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-148; RM-9088]


Radio Broadcasting Services; New London, IA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Sound In Spirit 
Broadcasting, Inc., allots Channel 247A at New London, Iowa, as the 
community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 247A can be 
allotted to New London in compliance with the Commission's minimum 
distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 2.7 
kilometers (1.7 miles) west in order to avoid a short-spacing conflict 
with the licensed operation of Station WFYR-FM, Channel 247B1, Elmwood, 
Illinois. The coordinates for Channel 247A at New London are 40-55-30 
NL and 91-25-40 WL. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective: November 24, 1997. The window period for filing 
applications for Channel 247A at New London, Iowa, will open on 
November 24, 1997, and close on December 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-148, adopted September 24, 1997, and 
released October 10, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC

[[Page 54791]]

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Iowa, is 
amended by adding New London, Channel 247A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-27943 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
258 La. 349

#### Alma YOUNG v. ALL AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51275.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 14, 1971.

In re: Alma Young applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 243 So.2d 894.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment.