alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

INNOCENT GEDEHOMME, )

DOC #S34447, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D18-1266

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 27, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Manatee County, Charles Sniffen, Judge.

Innocent Gedehomme, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, SLEET and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Walter BLUE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-130.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

Walter Blue, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

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

*331PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

GREGORY ARIAS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 125 4

[ November 14, 2019 ]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Construction Industry Licensing Board ; Keith O. Lawson II, Chair; L.T. Case No. 2019

- 03266

.
Gregory Arias, Royal Palm Beach, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Marlene K. Stern, Senior Assistant Attorney General , Tallahassee, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

C IKLIN , G ERBER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2
                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I, Cletus C. Glasener,  Vice  President-Finance  and Chief Financial  Officer of
Collins Industries,  Inc., certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the  quarterly  period
ended April 30, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  July 29, 2005

                                       By:  /s/ Cletus C. Glasener
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Cletus C. Glasener, Vice President
                                          of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
```
#### In re the ADOPTION OF Leonard David COLEMAN.

No. 77-341.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 12, 1977.

Legal Aid Society, Palm Beach County, Inc. and Larry A. Klein, West Palm Beach, for petitioners Albert Coleman and Ossie Lee Coleman.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

The only point raised on appeal is the right of the appellants, Albert Coleman and Ossie Lee Coleman, to have a hearing on their petition to adopt their grandson who has lived with them since birth. The trial court refused the petitioners a hearing and summarily denied the petition. Notwithstanding any testimony being taken or evidence received, the trial court concluded:

> The petitioners are prima facie ineligible to adopt a child under these facts. If they want custody of the child (which they have) they should look to the parents for support.

> This Court will not be a party to a scheme whereby a citizen is allowed to use the Courts for free, be provided a lawyer for free and have the Government of the United States support a child for free, as long as his mother and father are able to provide such support. To do so would prostitute the laws of Florida and add an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers of this country.

Since there was no hearing, this court is not in a position to evaluate these conclusions. However, the petitioners are entitled to a hearing on their petition and a decision on the merits. See *McMillan v. Findley,*135 So.2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MAGER, J., concurs.

CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.

CROSS, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The record is insufficient for lack of a transcript to determine whether the trial court refused petitioners a hearing and summarily denied their petition for adoption. It is the responsibility and duty of an appellant to provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to review matters assigned as error. *Johnson v. Town of Eatonville,*203 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). In the instant case, the appellant has failed to provide a sufficient record. Accordingly, I would affirm.
#### William BURNEO, a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Eduardo Burneo and Eduardo Burneo, Individually, et al., Appellants, v. Alfred J. BOULERICE, d/b/a Alfred J. Boulerice Roofing Company, et al., Appellees. Alfred J. BOULERICE, d/b/a Alfred J. Boulerice Roofing Company, Appellant, v. William BURNEO, a minor, by and through his father, and next friend, Eduardo Burneo, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 72-1500, 73-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### John Allen MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-399.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John Wayne Hogan, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*23Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. and

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before thé court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Robinson v. State (Fla.App. 1971), 256 So.2d 29; Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23, 52 So. 971.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7301

EDDIE JAMES SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ARNOLD SMITH; SHELLY SVEDA; OFFICER LONG;

JEFFREY LEIN; CLATTY OFFICER; ANDRE TYSON;

WILLIAM R. SHELL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-97-453-5-H)

Submitted: February 27, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie James Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion on Rehearing
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his second 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997) petition for failure to obtain authorization pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1997). Initially, this court

dismissed the appeal as untimely. We now grant Appellant's petition

for rehearing and address the case on the merits. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v.

Smith, No. CA-97-453-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 11, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
Support Block 

Basic Issue: Sep 26/2013 A605-57-004

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX 2 

The following data is required to manufacture the Support Block tool if necessary, 

for bushing removals.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________ No. 97-10445 Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE PAUL SALEMO,
Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 3:96-CR-393-1-H)

_________________________________________________________________ March 6, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

George Paul Salemo appeals his conviction for aiding and
abetting and escape from custody. He contends that his guilty plea
is invalid because the district court violated several provisions

of F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 11 during the colloquy.2

T he district court failed to inform Salemo during the plea
colloquy that his maximum sentence includes three years of
supervised release. This omission, however, when added to Salemo’s

sentence of imprisonment of 27 months, resulted in a total sentence

of only three months more than the maximum 60 months stated by the

district c ourt during the colloquy. Moreover, this period of
supervised rele ase is to run concurrently with the period of

s upervised release imposed on Salemo for his prior offenses.
Accordingly, the error was harmless. S ee United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (substantial rights are

affected when “the district court’s flawed compliance with

... Rule

11

... may reasonably be viewed as having been a material factor
affecting [defendant]’s decision to plead guilty”).

Salemo contends also that his substantial rights were affected
when the district court failed to address individually the rights
enumerated in Rule 11(c)(3). Instead, the court asked Salemo and

his counsel whether they had discussed the rights Salemo would give
up in pleading guilty. Salemo fails to explain how this omission
affected his substantial rights; therefore, it is unnecessary to

address this contention. Id. at 298.

AFFIRMED.
Follow-up on Owosso Graphic Arts 

Terri Zick to: Christopher Lambesis 02/08/2008 11:53 AM 

From: Terri Zick <tzick@cticompanies.com > 

To: Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

History: This message has been replied to. 

ChristopherI trust you have received and have had the opportunity to review the addendum submitted for the Owosso 

Graphic Arts de-listing petition. As we indicated in the addendum, OGA has discontinued use of TCE as a 

solvent in their cleaning process prior to etching. They have replaced TCE with an aqueous solution as 

documented in our submittal. 

We will do our best to be available at your convenience for a conference call to discuss the status of your 

review and the petition. 

Thank you 

313-300-7401 cell 

The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and/or confidentiat information intended only for the use of the 

individuat or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible 

to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is 

neither allowed nor intended. If you have received this communication in error, please immediatety notify us by return e-mail or by 

calling 800-CTI-TODAY and delete the message. Thank You!
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan

Item #25 

If the answer to item 24 is yes, does the application specify the effective date of the proposed 

partition and include a year-by-year projection of the amount of the reduction in benefit payments 

attributable to the partition.

See section 6.02. 

The plan sponsor is not requesting approval from the PBGC of a proposed partition under section 

4233 of ERISA. Therefore, this item is not applicable. 

25.0
Exhibit 23.1







March 4, 2016



Consent of Independent Auditor



We hereby consent to the inclusion in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 of Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. of our report dated March 3, 2016,
relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears
in this Annual Report.



We also consent to reference to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP under
the heading “Interests of Experts,” which appears in the Annual Information Form included in this Annual Report on
Form 40-F.







Chartered Professional Accountants








PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional
Accountants

111 5 Avenue SW, Suite 3100, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2P 5L3

T: +1 403 509 7500, F: +1 403 781 1825, www.pwc.com/ca



“PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
#### MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. v. FAISON.

No. 38317.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 217 So.2d 841.
1

Ogulei, David

From: Dennis J Warchol <dennis.warchol@veoliaes.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:12 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: Nancy L Paddock

Subject: Title V Permit Application

David, 

Can we call you at around 9 AM tomorrow to discuss your comments. I will have Nancy Paddock on the call who works 

for me and Kathy Strubberg our consultant who helped us with this application. If that time works, we will call you in 

your office. Thanks 

SERVICE FIRST SAFETY ALWAYS 

Dennis J. Warchol 

EHS Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

Trade Waste Incineration Facility 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618-271-2804 (ext.169) 

618-271-2128 (fax) 

Dennis.warchol@VeoliaES.com

www.VeoliaES.com

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 

contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the 

original message and delete it from all computers.
#### Peter C. AGNELLY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al.

No. 61971.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Peter C. Agnelly applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 595.

Writ denied.

TATE, J., and DENNIS, J., would grant.
256 La. 1152

#### Joy MOGABGAB, wife of/and Dr. William J. Mogabgab v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Robert E. O’Neil, Sam A. Mondello, Estelle Barkemeyer, Jack Pizzano, Dr. Carl J. Dolce and Continental Casualty Company.

No. 50968.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Orleans Parish School Board, Robert E. O’Neil and Sam A. Mondello applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 239 So.2d 456.

Writ refused: On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in the ruling complained of.
Exhibit 31.01


RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




I, Jon C. Sundt, certify that:









1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of APM - QIM Futures Fund, L.P.;




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:




(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




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):




(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.









Date: March 30, 2010




/s/ Jon C. Sundt


Jon C. Sundt


Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer


Altegris Portfolio Management, Inc. (d/b/a APM Funds)


General Partner of APM - QIM Futures Fund, L.P.
**CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONSULTANT**

 

 

I consent to the use of my report respecting the estimated oil reserve information as of December 31, 2007, for the Montana and Nevada producing properties of FX Energy, Inc. (the “Company”), and the discussion of such report as contained in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, and to the incorporation by reference of such report, as it is referred to in the Company’s annual report, into the following registration statements:

 

| Form   | SEC File No. | Effective Date    |
|--------|--------------|-------------------|
|   |         |              |
| S-3    | 333-80489    | June 30, 1999     |
| S-3    | 333-104792   | October 27, 2003  |
| S-3    | 333-110345   | November 18, 2003 |
| S-3    | 333-112058   | February 11, 2004 |
| S-8    | 333-112717   | February 11, 2004 |

 

 

Larry D. Krause

 

/s/ Larry D. Krause

 

Billings, Montana

March 6, 2008
256 La. 1141

#### Wallace FONTENOT v. SUN OIL COMPANY (formerly Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Company) et al.

No. 50470.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Sun Oil Company, J. I. Riddle, T. B. Geddie and J. D. Hedley applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 240 So.2d 924.

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.
#### James Kenneth DAVIS and Growers LP Gas Service, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Horace Cecil STIFLE, Jr., Appellee.

No. 69-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Nov. 6, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### John Lawrence ROBINSON, a/k/a Johnny Bryant, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Raymond H. KILPATRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Dennis Patrick KOCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Phillip Darwin MONEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 2438, 2638, 69-45, 69-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### AVIATION AND GENERAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The DANIA BANK, a Florida corporation, First National Bank of Hollywood, a Florida corporation, H. R. W. Industries, Inc., and Carol H. Hitchcock, individually and Hitchcock and Billman Inc., Appellees.

No. 70-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Raymond J. Hare, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 10.20**

 

**Loan Contract**

 

Through amiable and fullynegotiation, Sanhe City Lucksky Electrical Engineering Limited Company (hereafter referred to as the Borrower) and Lucksky (Holding)Group Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the Lender) come into the following Contract to perform:

 

**Art. 1.**On April1, 2014, the Lender lent RMB Three Million Only (in words) (¥3,000,000)to the Borrower for purchasing equipment. The repayment deadline is December 31, 2014.

 

**Art. 2.** The Lendershall lend money to the Borrower strictly in accordance with the national credit policies and plans. Otherwise, the Lender shallpay the Borrower penalty by day based on the default amount. The calculation of default amount will be the same as that of interestamount for overdue loan.

 

**Art.3.**The Borroweris willing to abide by relevant loan regulations of the Lender and use the loan for the Contract regulated purpose. Otherwise,the Lender will take back the already lent money immediately or earlier than schedule.

 

**Art. 4.** The Borrowershall guarantee to repay the loan principal in time. If delay is inevitable, the Borrower shall provide written application beforeloan maturity. Only after the Lender agrees its delay application and signs the delay repayment agreement, can the Borrower delaythe repayment. In case the Borrower doesn’t provide delay application or both parties don’t come into a delay agreement,the Lender will require the Borrower paying another 5% of the default amount as interest from the maturity time.

 

**Art. 5.** In caseof any disputes, both parties shall negotiate with each for solution. If the negotiation fails, the second way shall be taken forsolution:

 

1. Apply to the Sanhe ArbitrationCommittee for arbitration;

 

2. Apply to the People’sCourt for prosecution.

 

**Art. 6.** This Contractwill come into effect from the signing date.

 

This Contract is in duplicationwith each party holding one copy.

 

Lender (official seal):

 

Legal Representative:

 

Borrower (official seal):

 

Legal Representative:

 

Date: April 1, 2014