alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edgar Lewis POWELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth MATTYLE, Parker Powell, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11353.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1970.

*461J. Carl Parkerson, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.

Hewitt B. Johnson, Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BOLIN, DIXON and WILLIAMS, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Plaintiff and defendant were divorced and Mr. Powell was ordered to pay Mrs. Powell alimony and child support at the rate of $250 per month. Approximately six months after the divorce decree the same court, following hearing of a rule to show cause, ordered Mr. Powell relieved of making the alimony payments and Mrs. Powell appeals.

At the time of the rendition of the judgment of divorce and award of alimony the wife was employed and owned an undivided one-half interest in the community estate of her parents. On the date of the hearing of the rule and judgment freeing Mr. Powell of the duty of paying alimony, from which this appeal stems, Mrs. Powell had an income of approximately $400 per month and had been placed in possession of the remaining one-half interest in her parents’ estate as sole heir of her mother. The entire estate had a net value of approximately $40,000.

The issue is whether a divorced wife having a monthly income of $400 per month and owning property worth approximately $40,000 is entitled to alimony under the provisions of Louisiana Civil Code Article 160:

> “When the wife has not been at fault, and she has not sufficient means for her support, the court may allow her, out of the property and earnings of the husband, alimony which shall not exceed one-third of his income when:

> “1. The wife obtains a divorce;

> “2. The husband obtains a divorce on the ground that he and his wife have been living separate and apart, or on the ground that there has been no reconciliation between the spouses after a judgment of separation from bed and board, for a specified period of time; or

> “3. The husband obtained a valid divorce from his wife in a court of another state or country which had no jurisdiction over her person.

> “This alimony shall be revoked if it becomes unnecessary, and terminates if the wife remarries.”

The alimony provided for in La.C. C.Art. 160 is in the nature of a pension and is nothing more than a gratuity which the court may fix in its discretion at an amount not to exceed one-third of the husband’s income. Rabun v. Rabun, 232 La. 1004, 95 So.2d 635 (1957). What constitutes “sufficient means” for the divorced wife’s maintenance has been considered by our supreme court on many occasions. One of the latest cases, Montz v. Montz, 253 La. 897, 221 So.2d 40 (1969), held a divorced wife having no income but owning an estate valued at $30,000 had sufficient means for her maintenance.

We think the trial court was correct in ordering the alimony payments by Mr. Powell to his former wife discontinued. The judgment is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Mid Cap Growth Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| December 2, 2008 | /s/Michael G. Clark                                    |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|             | Michael G. Clark                                       |
|             | President                                              |
|             | DWS Mid Cap Growth Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Mid Cap Growth Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| December 2, 2008 | /s/Paul Schubert                                       |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|             | Paul Schubert                                          |
|             | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                  |
|             | DWS Mid Cap Growth Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |
#### Dewin W. FERRELL and Marie C. Ferrell, his wife, Appellants, v. INTER-COUNTY TITLE GUARANTY & MORTGAGE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-965.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 27, 1970.

Alfred D. Bieley, Miami, for appellants.

George N. Jahn, Miami, and Richard H. W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Rule 1.110(g), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., and Frank v. Levine, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 665.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7582

DRAIN M. SHORT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LISA HOLLINSWORTH, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(8:07-cv-01134-AW)

Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Drain M. Short, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Drain M. Short, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. We have reviewed the record and have found no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Short v. Hollinsworth, No. 8:07-cv-01134-AW (D.

Md. Oct. 4, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3741 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting 

funding for pregnancy centers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. SCHMITT, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, 

Mr. RISCH, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from restricting funding for pregnancy centers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3741 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Pregnant 

3 and Parenting Women and Families Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREG5 NANCY CENTERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

7 Human Services may not finalize, implement, or enforce, 

8 with respect to expenditures for any pregnancy center, the 

9 modification to section 263.11 of title 45, Code of Federal 

10 Regulations, as described in the proposed regulation set 

11 forth beginning on page 67697 of volume 88 of the Fed12 eral Register, or any substantially similar regulatory ac13 tion. 

14 (b) DEFINITION OF PREGNANCY CENTER.—In sub15 section (a), the term ‘‘pregnancy center’’ means any orga16 nization, such as a pregnancy resource center, pregnancy 

17 help center or organization, or pregnancy medical center, 

18 that— 

19 (1) supports protecting the life of the mother 

20 and the unborn child; and 

21 (2) offers resources and services to mothers, fa22 thers, and families, including but not limited to rela23 tionship counseling, prenatal and pregnancy edu24 cation, pregnancy testing, diapers, baby clothes, or 

25 material supports. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 3.8**

**AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS**

**OF**

**COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION**

Adopted May 11, 2009 

Section 3.02 of the Corporation’s Bylaws is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“General Powers and Number. The business and affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by the Board subject to any limitations set forthunder the laws of the State of Delaware, the Articles of Incorporation, and these Bylaws concerning corporate action that must be authorized or approved by the stockholders. The number of directors of the Corporation shall be nine. The authorizednumber of directors can be changed from time to time only by a duly authorized amendment of this Section 3.02. No reduction of the number of directors shall have the effect of removing any director before that director’s term of officeexpires.” 

 

-33-
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-5027 September Term, 2021 1: 22-cv -000 84-UNA Filed O n: March 22 , 20 22 Ido Zolda n, I D 039 317 904 ,

App ellant
v . Governme nt o f

the United Sta tes, App ellee
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: T ate l and Pillard, Circuit Ju dges, a nd Sen telle, Sen ior Circuit Judge J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief an d su pple me nt t here to f iled b y ap pellan t. See Fed . R. A pp. P. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing, it is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rder f iled Ja nua ry 24 , 202 2 b e a f

f irmed . T he district cou rt correctly dete rmine d th at a ppe llant la cked stan ding to p ursue the relief

sou ght. S ee Luja n v. Defs. of W ildlife , 50 4 U.S . 55 5, 5 73-7 4 (19 92) (“[A] pla intif

f raising only a gene rally available grievance ab outgovernm ent

. . . do es n ot state an Article II I case or co ntroversy .”). In add ition, app ellantha s no t pla usibly alleged a ny fa cts th at sh ow that a ppe llee h as waived its sovereign imm unity. Se e FDIC v . Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 47 5 (19 94) (“Sovereign imm unity is jurisdictiona l in na ture. ”); Bronn er ex. rel. Am . St ud. Ass’n v . Duggan, 9 62 F.3d 59 6, 6 02 (D.C. Cir. 2020 ) (“[O]nce jurisdiction is in questio n, ‘th e p arty claiming subje ct m atte r jurisdiction .

. . has the bu rden to dem onst rate tha t it e x ists.’”) (q uot ing Kha dr v. United Sta tes, 529 F.3d 111 2, 1 115 (D.C. Cir. 200 8)).

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-5027 September Term, 2021
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
# L_2005184EN.01004201.xml

| 15.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 184/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 184/42

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1130/2005

of 14 July 2005

on the issue of import licences for garlic imported under the autonomous tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1034/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1034/2005 of 1 July 2005 opening and providing for the administration of an autonomous tariff quota for garlic (1), and in particular Article 6(3) thereof,

Whereas:

Licence applications submitted by traditional and new importers to the competent authorities of the Member States pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1034/2005, exceed the available quantities. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Applications for import licences made by traditional importers pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1034/2005 and submitted to the Commission by the Member States on 12 July 2005 shall be issued for 2,717 % of the quantity applied for.

2.   Applications for import licences made by new importers pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1034/2005 and submitted to the Commission by the Member States on 12 July 2005 shall be issued for 0,765 % of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 July 2005.

It shall apply until 30 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 171, 2.7.2005, p. 11.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11528

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACKSON EWING WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-1-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jackson Ewing Wright appeals the 24-month above-range sentence 

imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. Wright challenges the 

revocation sentence as procedurally erroneous and substantively 

unreasonable.

With respect to procedural error, Wright asserts that the allegations to 

which he pleaded true constituted Grade C violations that resulted in a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11528 Document: 00515043825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2019
No. 18-11528

2

guidelines policy sentencing range of only five to 11 months. He argues here 

that the district court did not even consider that sentencing range because it 

believed an 18- to 24-month range to be applicable. A reading of the revocation 

transcript reflects that the district court understood the applicability of the 

lower sentencing range and varied upward from that range in sentencing 

Wright. It also reflects, contrary to Wright’s argument here, that the district 

court considered the appropriate sentencing factors and adequately explained 

its decision to vary from the applicable guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a), 3583; United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012).

Substantively, the district court was permitted to impose a 24-month 

sentence. See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 646 (5th Cir. 2010). Wright

has not shown that the district court gave improper weight to any sentencing 

factor or clearly erred in its balancing. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007).

Wright has failed to show that the sentence imposed by the district court 

was plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-11528 Document: 00515043825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2019
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Coachmen Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Claire C. Skinner, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on
my knowledge:

(1)    
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 as of
          and for the period(s) covered in the Report.

| |                                                  
| | -------------------------------------------------
| | By:  /s/ Claire C. Skinner                       
| | Claire C. Skinner                                
| | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Date:   November 5, 2004
----

----

**Exhibit      32.2**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                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                as of and for the period(s) covered in the                Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                July 31, 2007 |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|

|   | By:    | /s/                Colleen A. Zuhl     |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Colleen                A. Zuhl         |
|   |   | Chief                Financial Officer |

----

----
#### Norbert Bruce PRICE, Appellant, v. Olive Gervis SCOTT, Appellee.

No. 69-609.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 14, 1971.

Wallis E. Schulle, of Fisher, Prior, Pruitt & Schulle, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Guy C. Hill, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Two vehicles collided at a street intersection with plaintiff being injured. The defendant prevailed in the resulting negligence suit. We have carefully examined *350the record and find that the issues were properly for the jury and that the verdict was supported by adequate competent evidence.

As to the challenge based on questions during voir dire, it is our view that the matter rested within the discretion of the trial court and that no harmful or reversible error has been demonstrated. Mizell v. New Kingsley Beach, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 225; Sims v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 217; Foley v. Revlon, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 627.

Affirmed.

REED and WALDEN, JJ., and WILLIAMS, ROBERT L., Associate Judge, concur.
#### KAISER v. WHITE.

No. 38226.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
**Exhibit 15.2**

May 15, 2014 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We have readItem 16F of Form 20-F dated May 15, 2014, of VimpelCom Ltd. and are in agreement with the statements contained in paragraphs two and three therein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant containedtherein. 

Regarding the registrant’s statement concerning the lack of internal control to prepare financial statements, included inparagraph three, we had considered such matter in determining the nature, timing, and extent of procedures performed in our audit of the registrant’s 2013 financial statements. 

**/s/ ERNST & YOUNG ACCOUNTANTS LLP**

**Amsterdam, The Netherlands**
----

**EXHIBIT      32.3**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) 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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   August                    14, 2007 | By:    | /s/Jeffry                    E. Sterba                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |   | Jeffry                    E. Sterba                                        |
|                                                      |   | Chairman,                    President and                                 |
|                                                      |   | Chief                    Executive Officer                                 |
|                                                      |   | Public                    Service Company of New                    Mexico |