alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
254 La. 918

#### Joseph F. ROCKHOLT et al. v. Thomas S. KEATY.

No. 50157.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Joseph F. Rockholt et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 226 So.2d 76.

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.
#### APONAUG MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Eugene FLY, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee.

No. 8392.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 6, 1937.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered by the court that the motion, filed by appellants for an injunction pending the appeal in the above entitled and numbered cause be, and the same is hereby, denied.
#### LA SALLE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gerald M. GARTE, a minor, by and through Samuel Garte, his parent and next friend, and Samuel Garte, individually, Appellees.

No. 69-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 14, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
254 La. 1165

#### CITY OF HOUMA v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.

No. 50261.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. *11,*1969.

In re: Louisiana Power & Light Company applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, 229 So.2d 202.

Writs refused. Applicant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of an adverse judgment.
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TransDigm Inc.
(the Company) for the thirteen and thirty-nine week periods ended June 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Nicholas Howley, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director (Principal Executive Officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|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 of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the
Company for the periods indicated.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 5, 2004



/s/ W. Nicholas HowleyName:

W. Nicholas HowleyTitle:

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### Donald J. DOWD, Jr., Appellant, v. William F. ADER, Jr., Appellee.

No. 73-176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Joseph S. Paglino, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Tobias Simon and Elizabeth DuFresne, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant plaintiff seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment entered in his action for fraud and unjust enrichment.

After reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to appellant, we have concluded that the trial judge correctly found that there remained no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No reversible error having been made to appear, the final summary judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
256 La. 80

#### Anicet LAICHE v. Estelle B. LAICHE.

No. 50507.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Anicet Laiche applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 231 So.2d 647.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error in the judgment complained of.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                           ============

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Natalma Industries, Inc.
(Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Derick Sinclair, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (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 Registrant.


Date: November 12, 2003           /s/ Derick Sinclair
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                              Chief Financial Officer of
                              Natalma Industries, Inc., Registrant















                                   14
Exhibit 99.2
                            PRESIDENT'S CERTIFICATION


                            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 The Bralorne Mining Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2004, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Rene  Bernard,  President,  Chief Executive Officer and Director 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.







                                     By: /s/ "Rene Bernard"
                                     ----------------------
                                   Chief  Executive  Officer
                                     President and Director

Date:
EXHIBIT 10.11

                                EXPENSE AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made on this day, February 13, 2003, by AmeriFirst Fund I, LLC
("Applicant") and AmeriFirst, Inc. ("Affiliate") who agree as follows on behalf
of AmeriFirst Fund I, LLC. and AmeriFirst, Inc.

WHEREAS it is agreed that Affiliate chooses to assist and provide Applicant with
certain services and goods without charge.

WHEREAS it is agreed that upon receipt of these expenses Applicant is not
responsible for paying or repaying these expenses. Any forgiven payments that
may have occurred may not subsequently be repaid.

WHEREAS Applicant and Affiliate both are required to keep their books and
records according to generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), the
Applicant has reviewed the Agreement with their independent accountant.

WHEREAS the Applicant is not responsible for these expenses they are limited in
scope and reasonable to the normal operation of the Applicant and which are
provided to the Applicant by the Affiliate.

By signatures below, the Affiliate understands and acknowledges that it has no
claims against the Applicant for any payments made on behalf of the Applicant
pursuant to this agreement. Moreover, the Applicant has no obligation to prepay
the Affiliate or any other person in connection with expenses paid by the
Affiliate on behalf of the Applicant pursuant to this agreement.


On behalf of AmeriFirst Inc.;


/s/ Brittany Ellis
-------------------------------------
Ms. Brittany Ellis
Its; Secretary

On behalf of AmeriFirst Fund I, LLC.;


/s/ John Tooke
-------------------------------------
Mr. John Tooke
Its; Managing Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) v. ) NO. 4:09-CV-02453-CW ) ) LISA JACKSON, in her official capacity as ) Administrator of the Environmental ) Protection Agency ) ) Defendant )

NOTICE OF STIPULATED EXTENSION TO CONSENT DECREE DEADLINE Paragraph 9 of the Consent Decree entered in this case (Docket Entry 26) provides that the deadlines in the Consent Decree may by extended by up to 60 days by written stipulation of the parties to the Consent Decree filed with the Court. No action by the Court is required for such an extension. The parties have agreed to extend one of the deadlines in the Consent Decree. Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Consent Decree, defendant Lisa Jackson, in her official capacity as EPA Administrator, and plai ntiff Wild Earth Guardians hereby stipulate that the date by which EPA must either promulgate a FIP, approve a SIP, or approve a SIP in part with promulgation of a partial FIP to address the visibility requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the State of North Dakota be extended to March 2, 2012.

Case4:09-cv-02453-CW Document68 Filed12/16/11 Page1 of 22 Respectfully Submitted, December 16, 2011 IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /S/ Norman L. Rave, Jr. NORMAN L. RAVE, JR., Trial Attorney Environmental Defense Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 23986 Washington, DC 20026-3986 Telephone : (202) 616-7568 Fax: (202) 514-8865 Email: norman.rave@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendant /S/ James J. Tutchton (by permission) JAMES J. TUTCHTON (CA Bar No. 150908) WildEarth Guardians 1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 301 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 573-4898 Email: jtutchton@wi1dearthguardians.org Of Counsel:
ROBERT UKEILEY Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 435R Chestnut Street, Suite 1 Berea, KY 40403 Tel: (859) 986-5402 Fax: (859) 618-1017 E-mail: rukeiley@igc.org Counsel for Plaintiff Case4:09-cv-02453-CW Document68 Filed12/16/11 Page2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2784 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2784

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 
                     Park, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY 
              ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 101 of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 
1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Boundary Adjustment.--In addition to the sites described in 
subsections (b) and (c), the boundary of the park is adjusted to 
include approximately 1 acre of land in Dayton, Ohio, depicted as 
`Proposed Addition' on the map entitled `Dayton Aviation Heritage 
National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Addition', numbered 362/
193,730, and dated June 2024.''.

            Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 
      16), 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2784

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 
                     Park, and for other purposes.
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-44,581-02

EX PARTE NICKY CHARUNE AGNEW, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 007-1194-11-A IN THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM SMITH COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

Applicant complains that: appellate counsel was ineffective regarding amotion forrehearing;

trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning a meritorious suppression argument; trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to object to testimony from a DEA agent; trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to object to testimony regarding cocaine addicts; and trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to object to closing argument. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

We order that this application be filed and set for submission on Applicant’s claim of

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to determine whether the State Trooper who stopped

Applicant for a traffic violation had reasonable suspicion to continue Applicant’s detention after the

purpose for the traffic-stop had ended, whether the drug-evidence discovered after a canine-assisted

search should have been suppressed, and whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to

properly raise the issue before the appellate court. The parties shall brief these issues. This Court

has independently reviewed Applicant’s remaining claims, and habeas relief as to them is denied.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If that is not correct, the trial court shall

determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and desires to be represented by

counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art

26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 days of the date of this order, a

supplemental transcript containing: a confirmation that Applicant is represented by counsel; the

order appointing counsel; or a statement that Applicant is not indigent. All briefs shall be filed with

this Court within 90 days of the date of this order.

Filed: September 12, 2018

Do not publish
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Strategicsustainability performance plan
 
2010 |2011 | 2012|2013 |2014 |2016 |
 
SuDoc Number:LinkY 3.P 38/2:1-3/
Item Number:1070-N-08 (online)
CGP systemNumber:00884759
March 20, 2019
#### BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, and Aetna Life and Casualty Company, a corporation, Petitioners, v. Priscilla PERRY and Morton L. Perry, her husband, Respondents.

No. 69-843.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 8, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### Gene WOLFE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. K-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 26, 1969.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 2, 1969.

Brooks Taylor, Crestview, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Leach v. State, 132 So.2d 329 (Fla.1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 1005, 82 S.Ct. 636, 7 L.Ed.2d 543, Wolfe v. State, 190 So.2d 394 (Fla.App., 1966) and State v. Wolfe, 203 So.2d 338 (Fla.App., 1967).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
1 

### L EVI N
, N A NCY

F r om: S te c k e l

, A nd r ew S e nt: Fr i da y , J une 26, 2015 7:01 AM T o: L EV IN, N A NCY S ub jec t: F W : Reque s ted In f o r m at i on A tt ac hm e nt s: i m age001.g i f ; A O eng i ne Ret r o f i t ana l y s i s .do cx ; W ood

- bu r n i ng1.do cx ; Ev a l uat i on o f Co v e rs Lagoon s Manu r e Pil e s fo r NH3.do cx

Fo ll o w U p F la g: F o ll o w up F la g S t a tu s: Co m p l eted

___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ F r o m : Sh e ra z Gill [ Sh e ra z. G ill @ v all e y air

. o rg ]
S e n t: T hu rs d a y , Jun e 25
, 20 15 4 : 3 4 PM T o : S t e ck e l

, And r ew Cc : D ra k e , K e rr y ; K a y , R y n d a ; P e r e z , Id ali a ; L a w , N i c o l e ; M a y s , R o r y ; Er r o l Vill e g a s ; Ann a M y e rs ; S y l v ia Va nd e r s p e k (s v a nd e rs @ ar b. ca

. g o v) Sub j e c t: R e qu e s t e d In f o r m a t i o n

H e ll o And y ,

A tta c h e d i s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e qu e s te d b as e d o n t h e l a te s t d i s c u ssi o n s b e t wee n E P A a nd t h e D is t ric t

. P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w if y o u h a v e a n y qu e s t i o n s

. T h a n k s

Sh e ra z Gill
D ir e c t o r o f S t ra te g i e s a nd I n c e n t i v e s S a n J o a qu i n Vall ey A P C D P h o n e : ( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 0

- 59 08
F ax : ( 5 5 9 ) 2 3 0

- 6 0 6 1

s h e ra z.g ill @ v all ey air

. o r g < m ail t o : s h e ra z.g ill @ v all e y a i r

. o r g>

[ ci d :6 19 5 5 4 7 22 @ 1 6 1 0 2 00 9

- 0 2 9 1 ]
#### ESCAMBIA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and John R. Jones, as Property Appraiser of Escambia County, Florida, Petitioners, v. The ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION of the State of Florida, and the Ad Valorem Tax Division of the Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Respondents.

No. II-243.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 24, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1978.

*528John W. Fleming and Patricia D. Wheeler, Pensacola, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William D. Townsend, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondents.

ERVIN, Judge.

Escambia County and its property appraiser seek review of an order of the Administration Commission which approved an amendment to the County’s budget made by the Department of Revenue increasing the County’s budget by providing for the expenditure of electronic data processing equipment. We agree with the County that the Department of Revenue has no authority to amend a county’s budget after July 15. Section 195.087(1)a, Florida Statutes (1977), is explicit in requiring that the Ad Valorem Tax Division of the Department of Revenue shall review a budget request and may, on or before July 15, amend or change the requested budget as it deems necessary. No statutory authority, however, is given to the Department to so act after July 15.

We find no support in the record for the Department’s argument that the County is estopped from objecting to the Department’s amendment of the County’s budget on the ground that the County agreed to the changes. The only reference to the alleged agreement is a letter from the Es-cambia County Property Appraiser to the Department. We find nothing in the letter remotely suggesting any such agreement; indeed, the letter specifically stated it was the County’s intention to appeal the Department’s decision imposing the amendment.

That portion of the Administration Commission’s order approving the Department of Revenue’s prior order which directed an increase in the County’s budget of $27,925 for data processing, entered August 23, 1977, is REVERSED. The order is otherwise AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
Exhibit
13.1




CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Grupo Radio Centro, S.A.B. de C.V., a sociedad anónima bursátil de capital
variableorganized under the laws of Mexico (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      June 26, 2009
                  /s/ Carlos Aguirre G.Carlos
      Aguirre G.Director
      General, Chief Executive OfficerDate:
      June 26, 2009
                  /s/ Pedro Beltrán NasrPedro
      Beltrán NasrChief
      Financial 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         315,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  827,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (143,014)
<INVENTORY>                                     99,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,341,259
<PP&E>                                       8,889,083
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,027,540)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,263,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,465,361
<BONDS>                                      2,617,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,508
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,148,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,263,378
<SALES>                                      7,495,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,495,045
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,516,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               213,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             409,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (644,148)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (644,148)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (644,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>