alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[4310-CA065-1492]


Notice of Availability

November 20, 1997.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Record of Decision for the 
Soledad Mountain Gold Mine, Kern County, California, is available.

ADDRESSES: Written requests for copies of the Record of Decision should 
be addressed to Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest Resource Area, 
300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, California 93555, Attention: Ahmed 
Mohsen, EIS Coordinator.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ahmed Mohsen-EIS Coordinator (760) 384-5421.
Russell Miles,
Acting Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-31042 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
#### NORTHSIDE BANK OF MIAMI, Appellant, v. Luis NEUFELD and Dade Auto Sales, Inc., Appellees.

No. 70-1278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 27, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### VARDAMAN MFG. CO. v. VARDAMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.

No. 45514.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 1, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1969.

Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, Jackson and Yazoo City, Kenneth G. Perry, Jackson, Robert G. Gilder, Southaven, Lawrence Chandler, Calhoun City, for appellant.

L. G. Fant, Jr., Holly Springs, Armis E. Hawkins, Houston, for appellee.

JONES, Justice:

This suit was one seeking to establish by parol evidence a constructive trust in certain real estate and equipment. Combined, by agreement, for trial at the same time, were two suits where creditors sought judgments for debts.

To establish such a trust by parol, the evidence must be clear and convincing and received with caution; Saulsberry v. Saulsberry, 232 Miss. 820, 100 So.2d 593 (1958) and authorities there cited.

The lower court, after hearing, dismissed the bill to establish the trust and rendered judgment on the two accounts.

We affirm.

The evidence was voluminous, contradictory, and of a type peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact. We cannot say the chancellor was manifestly wrong.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, BRADY, and INZER, JJ„ concur.
Exhibit 13.1





PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











In connection with this Annual Report of Diana Containerships Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Symeon Palios, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: February 23, 2012














/s/ Symeon Palios


Symeon Palios


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Computer Horizons Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Barbara
Rodriguez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to her knowledge:

|Date: November 13, 2007 |  | /s/BARBARA RODRIGUEZBarbara Rodriguez Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
Officer
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Computer Horizons Corp. and will be retained by Computer Horizons Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Period Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
#### James DOUGLAS alias James Donald Douglas v. CIRCUIT COURT SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT in and for VOLUSIA COUNTY, Deland, Florida.

No. 39298.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
No. 72-1099.

#### Russo *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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 annual report of Global Defense
Technology & Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Hillen, 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |  |  |                        
|------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|              |  | 
|March 4, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ John Hillen        
|              |  |  |  | John Hillen            
|              |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
#### Henry E. CONNELLY and wife, Frances Connelly, et al., Appellants, v. Mr. and Mrs. Wyndell MERRITT, et al., Appellees.

No. R-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 13, 1973.

S. David Cox, of Barton & Cox, Gaines-ville, for appellants.

R. L. Henderson, Jr., of Dell, Graham, Wilcox, Barber, Rappenecker, Ryals & Henderson, Gainesville, and David A. West, of West, Doughtie & Feiber, Gaines-ville, for appellees.

JOHNSON, Judge.

In this appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, (Eighth Judicial Circuit), dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice, as to all the defendants therein named, we find and so hold that said order was in part valid but in part in error. Our reasons are enumerated hereinbelow.

*8In the amended complaint, inter alia, it is alleged that the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bertie and defendant Addison, in Counts I and II made fraudulent misrepresentations to the plaintiffs which induced the plaintiffs to purchase real estate lots from said defendants, said fraudulent representations being that the plaintiffs would always have access to Lake Newnan, and that these defendants, who at that time, owned the lakefront lot described in the complaint, would keep said lot to be “perpetually reserved and maintained by the defendants for the exclusive use of the plaintiffs and all of the other property owners who took title through the defendants”. That the false representation induced, and in fact, caused the plaintiffs to purchase their lots and improve the same, which they would not have purchased without such false representations, and that as a result thereof, the plaintiffs have been damaged by virtue of the decreased value of their properties.

We are of the opinion that the first two counts of the amended complaint state a good cause of action against the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bertie and Mr. Addison, for damages resulting from the false and fraudulent misrepresentations. What the proof may show is not a question in this proceedings before us. The counts, however, do- not allege any cause of action against the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Mer-rit. The Statute of Frauds does not come into play against the false oral representations, resulting only in money damages. These two counts seek damages, not easements or other claims against the land. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint in all counts as to all defendants is reversed as to Counts I and II as the same applies to the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bertie and John Addison, but the order is affirmed as to the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Merritt as to the whole complaint as well as to the other defendants as to Counts III and IV.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings not adverse to this opinion.

SPECTOR, C. J, and RAWLS, J., concur.
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/21/2015 2:48:28 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
<TABLE>
                                                                                                   EXHIBIT 12
                     COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
     Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                    (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      Twelve
                                                                                                      Months
                                                                  Year Ended December 31,             Ended
                                                    1993       1994       1995      1996       1997   9/30/98 
<S>                                              <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
Fixed Charges:                                                                                      
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . . $74,119    $68,471    $66,811    $59,711   $55,156  $49,855
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . .  10,436     10,221      8,829     12,125    15,525   21,755
  Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . .   1,305        817      1,328      2,400     5,104    3,804
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . .   4,036      4,566      4,657      4,374     4,729    4,439
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . .   3,700      3,700      4,100      4,600     4,100    4,100
       Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . $93,596    $87,775    $85,725    $83,210   $84,614  $83,953
                                                                                                    
Earnings:                                                                                           
  Net Income (Loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$(55,898)  $109,845   $110,616   $107,108  $119,379 $137,815
  Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . .  34,154     49,838     58,648     60,302    69,760   80,346
  Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .    -             1          7         11         6        6
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . .  93,596     87,775     85,725     83,210    84,614   83,953
       Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 71,852   $247,459   $254,996   $250,631  $273,759 $302,120
                                                                                                    
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . .    0.76(a)    2.81       2.97       3.01      3.23     3.59

(a) Ratio includes the effect of the Loss from Zimmer Plant Disallowance of $144,533,000 (net of applicable
income taxes  of $14,534,000).  As a result, earnings for  the twelve  months ended  December 31, 1993 were
inadequate to cover fixed charges by $21,744,000.  If the effect of the Loss from Zimmer Plant Disallowance
were excluded, the ratio would be 2.46 for the twelve months ended December 31, 1993.
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61483-61484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30241]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63

[FRL-5923-7]
RIN 2060-AG21


Amendments for Testing and Monitoring Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action reopens the public comment period for the action 
entitled ``Amendments for Testing and Monitoring Provisions'' that was 
proposed in the Federal Register on August 27, 1997 (62 FR 45369). The 
60-day comment period in the proposal ends October 27, 1997. The 
comment period is being reopened until January 5, 1998. A public 
commenter requested that the comment period be reopened because of the 
volume of material that was proposed. The intended effect of this 
action is to allow the affected public sufficient time to review and 
comment on the proposed action.

DATES: Comments. The comment period is reopened to January 5, 1998. 
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket No. A-97-12 (see docket section below), room M-1500, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20460. The Agency requests that a separate copy also be sent to 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
    Docket. Docket No. A-97-12, containing materials relevant to this 
rulemaking, is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays, 
at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room M-
1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Foston Curtis, Emission 
Measurement Center (MD-19), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-1063 or at fax number 
(919) 541-1039.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, New sources, Test methods and procedures, 
Performance specifications, Continuous emission monitors.

40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Test methods and procedures.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Hazardous air pollutants, Test methods 
and procedures.


[[Page 61484]]


    Dated: November 10, 1997.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-30241 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIITNGTON, D.C. 

Hiroaki Nishio 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

Commonwealth Ports Authority 

RESPONDENT. 

Docket No. 16-13-03 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, 

§16.ll(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before 

February 27,2015. 

.Randall 

tJd415~ S. Fiertz' 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January Cf ( , 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, 

postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Hiroaki Nishio 

P.O. Box 5910 CHRB 

Saipan, MP 96950 

Complainant 

Maryann Q. Lizama 

Acting Executive Director 

Commonwealth Ports Authority 

Saipan International Airport 

P.O. Box 501055 

Saipan, MP 96950-1055 

Respondent 

Robert Tenorio Torres 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 503758 CK 

Saipan, MP 96950 

Counsel to the Respondent 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

/-1 . 

I ;/; 1 / 

I ;/ " ~~~~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
|   | (1) | the      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended      January 2, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      February 11, 2009 | By:    |        /s/ MICHAEL J. MANCUSO             |
|-------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Michael      J. Mancuso                        |
|                          |   | Vice      President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
#### Herman A. Haeussler, Appellant, *vs.*Missouri Glass Company, Respondent.

1. *Mechanic's lien*— To *what attaches.*— A mechanic’s lien only attaches to such property and fixtures as form part of the realty. (W. S., 907-8, *§§*1-4.)

2. *Trustee's sale*— Personal *property*— Mow *attached.*— The sale of a trustee under a deed of trust of personal property, can only be attacked by a suit in equity to set it aside by the grantor in the deed of trust, or one claiming under him.

*Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.*

*Slapback fy*Haeussler, for Appellant.

The defendant was present at the sheriff’s sale, *and by its silence*and by letting judgment go,is now estopped from denying plaintiff’s title. (Dolde vs. Yodicka, 49 Mo., 101; Rice vs. Bunce, 49 Mo., *234-5;*State to use, &c. Ross vs. Cave, 49 Mo., 131.)

Hitchcock, *Lubke*<$* Player, for Respondent,

cited: Collins vs. Mott, 45 Mo., 100.

*453Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of replevin for various articles of personal property, being tools, implements, moulds &e., for the manufacturing of glass.

The plaintiff claims title by virtue of a sale under a judgment and execution, rendered on a mechanic’s lien; — and the defendant claims title by virtue of a deed of trust, and a sale and purchase thereunder. The sale under the mechanic’s lien would be the better title, if any title at all passed by such sale to this sort of property.

The description in the mechanic’s lien and judgment covered the propety by name, but the difficulty is that such lien only attaches to such property and fixtures as form a part of the realty, and not to personal property such as this was,- and which, although used in the manufacturing of glass, did not become a part of the realty so as to be subject to the mechanic’s lien. The sale therefore of this personal property under the mechanic’s lien passed no title. (W. S., 907, §§ 1, 2, 3, and 4; Collins vs. Mott, 45 Mo., 100.)

The deed of trust under which the defendant claims title, covered the same property. The trustee sold it all in a lump, and the defendant became the purchaser. It is objected here, that this sale passed no title.

The plaintiff has no right to raise this objection; if it could be raised at all by him claiming under the grantor in the deed of trust, it could only be done by a suit in equity to set aside the sale. Until set aside by a direct proceeding for that purpose, the trustee’s sale must stand. Judge "Wagner absent.

The other Judges concur.
#### Ex parte Oliver Lamar YOUNG.

77-309.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 3, 1978.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Ronaldo Reyes       | Attn: Robert Castle / Kristine Gullo |
| 1761 East St. Andrew Place           | 301 Bellevue Parkway, 3rd Floor |
| Santa Ana, CA  92705                 | Wilmington, DE 19809 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Darnella Tinnel-Crawford       | Ally Bank |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 700               | Attn:  Martha Tate |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 200 West Civic Center Drive |
|                                            | Sandy, UT 84070 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2017-5 |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller & Chief Accounting Officer |
|   |   |
### **Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Computer Horizons Corp. (the “Company”) for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Periodic Report”), I,William J. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   Date: | May        , 2004 |                    | /s/  William J. Murphy |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|              |                                            | William J. Murphy       |
|              |                                            | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |                                                 |                         |                             |        |  |

 

----