alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Al KNIPE, Appellant, v. June M. KNIPE, Appellee.

No. 73-1002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 22, 1974.

Millican & Trawick, Sarasota, for appellant.

Nelson, Stinnett, Surfus, Payne, Hesse & Cyril, Sarasota, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

ON MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND

The appellant seeks reduction of superse-deas bond fixed in the amount of $150,000 on the ground that:

> “The final judgment, in addition to the items set forth in paragraph 3, awarded alimony, an award of alimony not being a money judgment, and, therefore, is a decision, judgment, order or decree which is in whole other than a money judgment.”

The judgment appealed from awarded the appellee $15,000 per year periodic alimony, $6,000 child support, plus lump sum alimony of $137,000. The husband is said to have an income of approximately $35,900 per year, liquid assets of $205,000 in stock in a closely held corporation with shareholder equity of $478,350. The appellant cites no authority for the proposition that a judgment ordering him to pay $137,000 lump sum alimony is not a “money judgment.” He apparently makes no claim that the order is unreasonable under Rule 5.10, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and certainly it does not appear to be on its face if the judgment is a money judgment. We think it is. The appellant travels on the assumption that Rule 5.9, F.A.R., governs this case. We think that Rule 5.7, F.A.R., governs.

There is a minor ambiguity because Rule 5.9 does state that:

> “If the decision, judgment, order or decree is in whole *or in part*other than a money judgment, order or decree, the elements to be considered in fixing the amount and conditions of the bond shall be the cost of the action, cost of the appeal, interest (if chargeable), damages for delay, use, detention, and depreciation of any property involved.”

*72Rule 5.7, on the other hand, states:

> “When the decision, judgment, order or decree requires or provides unconditionally for the payment or recovery of money, the bond shall be conditioned to satisfy the judgment or decree or any modification not increasing the amount thereof, in full, including costs, interest (if chargeable), and damages for delay, in event the appeal be dismissed or the judgment, order or decree is affirmed.”

We conclude that the intent of the rules is to make the supersedeas bond adequate to assure payment of the judgment if it should be affirmed. We hold nothing more here than that a judgment compelling the payment of $137,000 in lump sum alimony is a money judgment within the meaning of Rule 5.7, F.A.R., in a case in which the point on appeal solely concerns propriety of the monetary aspects of the judgment appealed from.

Motion for modification of supersedeas bond denied.

BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR TUR O ZUAZO-R O DR IGUEZ, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-71554 Age n c y No. A092-566-473 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Arturo Zuaz o-R o d

rigue z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r de ny ing his mo tion to re ope n his de porta tion proc e e dings. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion thede nia l of a m otion to re o pe n. Mohamme d v . 

# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the p e tition for re v i e w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing a s untim e ly

Zua z oR odrigue z ’ s m o tion to re ope n. Zuaz o-R odrigue z file d the m otion ne arly fifte e n y e ars a fte r the Se pte m

be r 30, 1996, filing de a dline , se e8 C . F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1), and fa ile d to e sta blish tha t he qua lifie d for e quita

ble tolling of the

filing de a dline ba se d on the a lle ge d d

u e proc e ss viola

tions c om m i tte d by the IJ in Zuaz oR odrigue z ’ s origina l proc e e dings, se eAv agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th C ir. 2011) (e quita

ble tolling is a

va ila ble whe n a

pe titione r is pre ve nte d from filing be c a use of de c e ption, fra

ud, or e rror, a s long a s the pe t itione r a c ts with due dilige n c e in disc ove ring the de c e ption, fra ud or e rror). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision not to re ope n sua sponte . Se eMe jia-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C i r. 2011) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w c ha lle nge s to theB IA’ s disc re t iona ry de c ision not to invoke its sua

sponte a uthority). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

2 1 4 - 7 1 5 5 4
EXHIBIT 12

COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER
COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of
Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges (in thousands except
ratio data)

|                                            | Year Ended December 31, | Twelve
Months
Ended
|------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | -------------------
|
|Fixed Charges:                              |                         |                    
|Interest on First Mortgage Bonds            |                         | $47,323            
|Interest on Other Long-term Debt            |                         | 23,594             
|Interest on Short-term Debt                 |                         | 3,493              
|Miscellaneous Interest Charges              |                         | 4,459              
|Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals |                         | 5,300              
|                                            |                         |                    
|Total Fixed Charges                         |                         | $84,169            
|                                            |                         |                    
|Earnings:                                   |                        
|Income Before Extraordinary Item and        |                        
|Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change      |                         | $133,044           
|Plus Federal Income Taxes                   |                         | 71,202             
|Plus State and Local Income Taxes           |                         | 3                  
|Plus Fixed Charges (as above)               |                         | 84,169             
|                                            |                         |                    
|Total Earnings                              |                         | $288,418           
|                                            |                         |                    
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          |                         | 3.42               
|                                            |                         |
Exhibit
4.03


 


Parent
Disclosure Schedule (Petroterra Corp.)


 


Capitalization
Table as of March 30, 2017


 





	 	 	Preferred
    Stock	 	 	Common
    Stock	 
	 	 	Conversion	 	 	Total	 	 	Total	 	 	Equivalent	 	 	Equivalent	 
	Name	 	Price	 	 	Shares	 	 	Shares	 	 	Shares	 	 	%
    Outstanding	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Common Stock	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Non Affiliated Outstanding
    Shares	 	$	0.0833	 	 	 	4,000,000	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	48,019,208	 	 	 	25.2	%
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	28,323,588	 	 	 	28,323,588	 	 	 	14.9	%
	Issuance – Steve Yariv	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	114,202,944	 	 	 	114,202,944	 	 	 	59.9	%
	Directors & Officers	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	-	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total Common Stock Outstanding	 	 	 	 	 	 	4,000,000	 	 	 	142,526,532	 	 	 	190,545,740	 	 	 	100.0	%
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total Authorized	 	 	 	 	 	 	4,000,000	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	500,000,000	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Shares Available for Issuance	 	 	 	 	 	 	-	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	309,454,260
# Transactions Report - CPP

Page &P of &N

# CPP Footnotes

Page &P of &N

# CPP - Citi

Page &P of &N

# CDCI

Page &P of &N

# AIFP.ASSP

Page &P of &N

# TIP.AGP

Page &P of &N

# CBLI.AIG

Page &P of &N

# SBA

Page &P of &N

# PPIP

Page &P of &N

# HAMP

Page &P of &N

# HHF

Page &P of &N

# FHA Short Refi

Page &P of &N
----

**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:   November                8, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Patricia K. Vincent              |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |   | Patricia                K. Vincent                  |
|                                                   |   | Utilities                President                  |
|                                                   |   | Public                Service Company of New Mexico |

----
Mink & Duke, PLLC

September 15, 2014 VIAFEDERAL EXPRESS- 8029 3463 8913 Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue SW Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430

Dear Sir/l\1adam: RE: DocketNo. 2011CE190020 In Re: Our Client: SmyrnaAir Center, Inc" OurFile No: SAC-2258 Thomas F" Mink, ll 

## "--- P.O. Box t98742 219 Second Avenue North, Suite 400 Ntdhvilie, TN 37219-8742 Phone: (615) 256-·0 l38

Fax: (615} 730-5997 

# RECEIVED SEP 162014 

# HEARING DOCKET 

# ;(Oll./- 

# Qlp&S

We are representing SmyrnaA.ir Center, Inc. inthe above matter. We recently received a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty issued to Smyrna Air Center, Inc. on August 27, 2014. Please constitute this letter as a request for hearing on behalfof Smyrna Air Center, Inc., as set forth in the Final Notice. As instructed, we are providh1g a copy ofthis request for hearing to attorney Ryan M. Landers, inthe office ofRegional Counsel, Randy EllenHyman" If you have any questions regarding the request for a hearing, or requrre further information for the same, please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

**Nashvilh:~** @> LawrenceburgFederal AviationAdministration September 15,2014 Page2

Withkindest regards, I remain, Verytruly yours, MINK & DUKE, PLLC By: 

# ne.wM

# r. !&.qt 11

. -·······- -·-·······-l-- Thomas F. Mink, II

TFM/nw cc: RyanM. Landers
#### John L. BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-291.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 11, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1237

NANCY J. NEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

XEROX CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-1244

NANCY J. NEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

XEROX CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie and J. Calvitt

Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judges. (CA-96-1235-2, CA-97-553-2)

Submitted: April 21, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998
2

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

No. 98-1237 dismissed and No. 98-1244 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Nancy J. Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Ann Bertini, MCGUIRE, WOODS,

BATTLE & BOOTHE, Norfolk, Virginia; Eva Susan Tashjian-Brown,

Rodney Allen Satterwhite, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A.

§§ 2000e-2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals Appellant appeals from the

voluntary dismissal of her Title VII* complaint. (No. 98-1237). We

find that Appellant’s complaint was voluntarily dismissed by final

order entered on June 2, 1997, and Appellant’s notice of appeal was

filed on February 12, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal

period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal leaves this

court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s

appeal.

Appellant further appeals the district court’s order granting

Appellee’s motion to dismiss her second complaint filed on the same

facts as the first. (No. 98-1244). We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss No. 98-1237 as untimely and we affirm No. 98-1244

on the reasoning of the district court. Neal v. Xerox Corp., Nos.

CA-96-1235-2; CA-97-553-2 (E.D. Va. June 2, 1997; Jan. 15, 1998).

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.

No. 98-1237 - DISMISSED

No. 98-1244 - AFFIRMED
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-815.2 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

Customs Cooperation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MEXICO 

Signed at Davos January 26, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MEXICO 

 Trade: Customs Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Davos January 26, 2007; 

 Entered into force August 15, 2008.
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC.
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF
 THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,   Graham Neil, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Intellipharmaceutics International  Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The company'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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the  annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 31, 2010
 
 By:
/s/ Graham NeilGraham Neil

Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Samuel ZELL, Individually and as Trustee, and Continental Casualty Company, Appellants, v. AZZARELLI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 72-56.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1972.

Jere D. McWinn, of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Ball, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Himes *&*Talley and Corcoran & Henson, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla.Stat. § 713.06(d) (1971), F.S.A.; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(e), 31 F.S.A.; 6 Moore, Federal Practice § 56.-15(3).

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas Miller, the chief financial officer of TeleNav, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of 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,

(i) Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



By:

/s/ Douglas MillerDouglas MillerChief Financial OfficerDate: December 21, 2010
Exhibit 99.4





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 Texas-New Mexico Power Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Forbes, Chief Financial and Accounting 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 to the best of my knowledge:





(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











/s/ Scott Forbes








Scott Forbes


Chief Financial and Accounting Officer


November 6, 2002
## Table 23, Total EPA Burdens And Costs for CY-2013-2015 EPA OAQPS EPA Regional Offices OID Item Hours Costs Hours Costs 1. NAMS/SLAMS/PAMS oversight 75,436 $3,233,187 - - (includes site visits, annual network review) 2. QA audits (includes perf. audits 31,551 $1,352,276 - - NPAP, & systems audits) 3. Regional monitoring meeting 4,735 $202,942 - - with States 4. National or regional monitoring 3,486 $149,410 - - meetings 5. 105 Grant activities 13,096 $561,295 - - 7. Other items 7,489 $320,979 - - 8. Methods development in support of - - - - regulatory

program, and reference and equivalent activities (See footnote) 9. In-house burdens for AIRS/AQS - -10,296 $524,787 (includes AIRS Exec, AIRS TTN Web/Homepage, AIRS conference, training) 10. Contractor support including - - 3,000 $152,910 hot line, enhancements maintenance, training, etc. 11. Hardware/software NCC - - - $1,090,829 burden, national AQS costs 12. AIR NOW - - - $1,116,700 13. Other (software purchased - - - $83,044 internal support **Totals 135,793**  **$5,820,088 13,296**  **$2,968,270**

### Regional hourly average of 2012 GS 12-10 used

HQ hourly average of 2012 GS 13-10 used

## Table 23, Total EPA Burdens And Costs for CY-2013-2015 02/21/2013

AQAD Total EPA Hours Costs Hours Costs 43,680$2,226,370119,116 $5,459,557

- -31,551 $1,352,276

- - 4,735 $202,942

- - 3,486 $149,410

- - 13,096 $561,295

- - 7,489 $320,979

- - - -

- - 10,296 $524,787

- - 3,000 $152,910

- - - $1,090,829

- - - $1,116,700

- - - $83,044 **43,680 $2,226,370** **192,769 $11,014,728**
Memorandum

u.s. Department of

Transportation

Office ollhe Secretory

of Transportation

Subject PaY~1 f~ Island Air at the Kodiak 11

5(O~. ~~

From: Kevin Schlemmer, Chief

EAS and Domestic Analysis, X-53

To: Gregory Frazier, S-3.6

Reference: Orders 2013-9-12

Date: September 27, 2013

OAA Memo NO.2012-99

Kevin Adams, X-53

Ext. 61047

Order 2013-9-12 reselected Island Air to provide EAS at the Alitak, Amook Bay, Kitoi.

Bay, Moser Bay, Olga Bay, Port Bailey, Port Williams, Seal Bay, Uganik, West Point,

and Zachar Bay, Alaska (Kodiak 11), from November 1, 2013, through October 31,2015.

Appendix C of that Order shows the initial Off-Peak period beginning January 5, 2013,

i.e., before the selection period begins. That is an error, because the Off-Peak begins a

year later, i.e., January 5, 2014.

We have made this adjustment; and will add this memo to both the docket and to ADDs.

#