alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. Moran TOOLE, Appellant, v. Delaine S. TOOLE, Appellee.

No. 77-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1978.

James J. Belcher of Law Offices of James J. Belcher, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Donald L. Burrie, Pompano Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Our study of the briefs and record in this cause convinces us that this is not an appropriate case for the allowance of lump sum alimony. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment appealed and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to amend the judgment by allowing reasonable permanent periodic alimony which, of course, will be subject to modification as the circumstances of the parties may change.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
#### Hilliard MARENO v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47083.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 18, 1972.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jones County; James D. Hester, Judge.

Affirmed.
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 
 COMMON STOCK [GOLDMAN SACHS LOGO] COMMON STOCK PAR VALUE $.01 Certificate Number ZQ00000000 Shares THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THIS CERTIFIES THAT SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 38141G 10 4 is the owner of THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN CITIES DESIGNATED BY THE TRANSFER AGENT, AVAILABLE ONLINE AT
www.computershare.com FULLY-PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person, or by duly authorized
attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its
duly authorized officers. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer [THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. SEAL] DATED [DD-MMM-YYYY]COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. TRANSFER AGENT AND
REGISTRAR, Global Treasurer By AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 












 



 
 THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS A STATEMENT OF THE
DESIGNATIONS, POWERS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF OF THE CORPORATION AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. SUCH
REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE CORPORATION OR THE TRANSFER AGENT. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations: TEN COM- as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) TEN ENT - as tenants by the entiretiesJT
TEN- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF TRF MIN ACT- Custodian (until age)(Cust) under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act(Minor) (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: 20 Signature: Signature:
Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.Signature(s) Guaranteed: Medallion Guarantee Stamp THE
SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-K of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC (the "Company") for the
year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David F. Pope, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



By:

/s/ DAVID F. POPE Name: David F. Pope
Title:Chief Executive Officer


Date:
June 14, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Mary R. BOZZELL, Appellant, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY of AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 72-203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1972.

Alfred D. Bieley, Miami, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant, Mary R. Bozzell, seeks review of the trial court’s final order dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in an action for a declaratory decree, reformation of an insurance policy and equitable relief against defendant-appellee, Prudential Insurance Company of America.

Plaintiff’s son, Michael Jones, a member of the Armed Forces, executed a Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Policy in the amount of $15,000, but he failed to designate any beneficiary. The son died while still in the Army and the proceeds of the subject insurance policy devolved by operation of law according to the hierarchy of beneficiaries in 38 U.S.C. § 770. The fourth classification in the hierarchy was the first in which any beneficiary for the decedent was found:

> “Fourth, if none of the above, to the parents of such member or the survivor of them.”

The natural parents of Michael Jones are Mary R. Bozzell, plaintiff-appellant, and Robert F. Jones, and it was to these two people that defendant-appellee, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, paid the proceeds of the policy in equal shares.

Mary Bozzell contests in her complaint the division of the proceeds and points to a letter written by the decedent before he was killed in which, according to appellant’s interpretation, he designates his mother to be his sole and exclusive beneficiary under the policy. She also states that Robert Jones, the decedent’s natural father, had abandoned her and decedent when the decedent was an infant and had not lived with or supported either of them during their entire marriage. Appellant’s *25complaint was dismissed by the lower court for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

After reading the letter written by decedent to his mother, we are unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the letter designated Mary Bozzell as the sole and exclusive beneficiary under the policy. Since the letter is the basis of the complaint, appellant has failed to support her arguments. Nor do we find any other issues raised by appellant that would reflect any doubt as to the meaning, interpretation or applicability of the beneficiary provision of 38 U.S.C. § 770.

The lower court’s final order: of dismissal is affirmed.
Exhibit 35.3


Navient Solutions, LLC - Master Servicer
 11100 USA Parkway
 Fishers, IN 46037
 Attention: Nancy Haas
 
 Pursuant to the FFEL Program Onmibus Subservicing Agreement, dated as of August 12, 2010 between and among Nelnet Servicing, LLC (the “Subservicer”)
        and Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc. and as Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Master Servicer and as Administrator, as supplemented by the related Supplement to the Omnibus Subservicing Agreement, dated as of August 26, 20I 0,
        by and among Navient Funding, LLC (formerly known as SLM Funding LLC), SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-2, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as successor to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association), as Eligible Lender
        Trustee, the Master Servicer, the Administrator and the Subservicer (collectively, the “Subservicing Agreement”), the undersigned here certifies that (a) a review of Nelnet Servicing, LLC’s activities during the period from January !,2018 through December 31, 2018 and of its performance under the Subservicing Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision; and (b) to the best of my
        knowledge, based on such review, Nelnet Servicing, LLC has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement, in all material respects, during such period.
 
 /s/ Joseph E. Popevis
 Joseph E. Popevis, President
 Nelnet Servicing, LLC
#### Eric MIKOTA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Daniel TENNANT, Lt.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-35917.

D.C. No. CV-01-05023-WFN.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*799Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Eric Mikota appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials denied him due process when they punished him with 10 days of “isolation” for possessing tobacco and matches. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

Mikota does not allege in his complaint that his isolation “impose[d] an ‘atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,’ ” *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)), and Mikota declined the district court’s invitation to amend his complaint. Consequently, the district court properly determined that Mikota failed to state a claim because he did not allege a liberty interest in being free from disei-plinary “isolation.” *See Duffy v. Riveland,*98 F.3d 447, 457 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2011 of Tower International, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James C. Gouin, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.



|April 27, 2012          | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|/s/ James C. Gouin      | 
|James C. Gouin          | 
|Chief Financial Officer |
#### Henry David EBERHARDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-256.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 35.3 

**SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

SALLIE MAE, INC. 

12061 Bluemont Way 

Reston,VA20190 

Pursuant to Section 13.03 of the Omnibus SubservicingAgreement dated March 23, 2009 among Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. (“Subservicer”), Sallie Mae, Inc. as the master servicer and administrator (the “Servicing Agreement”), the undersigned certifies that(a) a review of the Subservicer’s activities during the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision; and (b) to the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligation under the Servicing Agreement, in all material respects, during such period. 

GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC. 

/s/ JILL M. LEITL 

Jill M. Leitl 

Chief Servicing Officer 

February 6, 2013
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-6538

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM031AD

737-53A1214, R4 --- 12/16/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Beatrice Rosalie DONNER, Appellant, v. Paul B. ANTON et al., Appellees.

No. 77-117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath and Paul Siegel, Miami, for appellant.

Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider and David L. Kline, Hollywood, Broad & Cassel and Lewis Horwitz, Bay Harbor Island, Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin, Heller & Kaplan and Robert Golden, Miami, Amy Linda Steele, North Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                           3,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,576
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,580
<PP&E>                                          10,424
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,634
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,386
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,463
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (35)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,525
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,925
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
#### John E. TAYLOR v. Robbie HAYNES.

No. 50545.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 23, 1978.

Jon C. Anderson, Coffeeville, for appellant.

J. Terry Peeples, Coffeeville, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Yalobusha County; Kermit R. Cofer, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.

COFER, J., took no part.
#### William Robert BROWN, Appellant, v. Peggy Davis BROWN, Appellee.

No. 72-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard B. Keating, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                     COLUMBIA ENERGY GROUP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                Statements of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                 ($ in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Twelve Months                            Twelve Months
                                                     Ended March 31,                          Ended December 31,
                                                    ------------------    ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2002         2001     2001         2000         1999         1998         1997
                                                    ----         ----     ----         ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                 <C>          <C>      <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
CONSOLIDATED INCOME (LOSS) FROM CONTINUING
OPERATIONS BEFORE INCOME TAXES:                     395.3        511.6    389.2        449.0        556.1        461.1        397.0

ADJUSTMENTS:
    Interest during construction                     (2.3)        (2.3)    (2.2)        (2.2)        (2.8)        (2.1)        (3.0)
    Distributed (Undistributed) equity income        (0.6)        (4.9)     2.2         (5.5)        (5.8)        (0.4)         3.6
    Fixed charges *                                 161.1        191.7    177.9        192.8        183.8        163.3        180.5
                                                    -----        -----    -----        -----        -----        -----        -----
Earnings available                                  553.5        696.1    567.1        634.1        731.3        621.9        578.1

*FIXED CHARGES:
    Interest on long-term and short-term debt       116.8        151.5    123.6        154.3        152.9        145.4        145.6
    Other interest                                   35.7         22.2     45.9         18.3         14.9          1.4         15.2
    Portion of rentals representing interest          8.6         18.0      8.4         20.2         16.0         16.5         19.7
                                                    -----        -----    -----        -----        -----        -----        -----
Total Fixed Charges                                 161.1        191.7    177.9        192.8        183.8        163.3        180.5

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                   3.44         3.63     3.19         3.29         3.98         3.81         3.20
                                                    =====        =====    =====        =====        =====        =====        =====

Prior periods have been restated to reflect discontinued operations.
</TABLE>


                                       18
Michael Joseph Indovina VI, Mike Six Imaging - Section 333 Exemption Amendment

Michael	Joseph	Indovina	VI,	Mike	Six	Imaging,	Los	Angeles	CA	– Section	333	Exemption	Amendment Page	1 of	1

December	15th,	2015

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20590

Re: Amendment	to	Exemption	No.	11998,	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-0331

To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

I,	Michael	Joseph	Indovina	VI	hereby	request	an	amendment	to	Exemption	No.	

11998.		By	letter,	dated	July	9th,	2015,	exemption	was	issued	under	section	333	of	

the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012,	to	operate	a	UAS	for	commercial	

photography	purposes.		In	this	petition	for	an	amendment	to	exemption	No.	11998,	I	

am	seeking	to	add	additional	UAS	types	to	be	used	for	the	same	purposes.		The	

proposed	operation	and	all	governing	exemptions	and	limitations	remain	

unchanged.		The	FAA	is	familiar	with	and	has	already	determined	that	the	two	

models	being	added	here	meet	the	requirements	of	Section	333	of	the	Reform	Act	

due	to	their	weight,	speed	and	operational	capabilities.

Each	of	the	two	models	being	added	below	have	set	no	new	precedents	and	exist	in	

numerous exemptions	under	Section	333.		I	request	the	addition	of	the	following	

UAS	types	to	Exemption	No.	11998:

DJI	Inspire	1 (Previously	granted	to	CineDrones,	LLC	-Exemption	No.	11279)

DJI	Phantom	3 (Previously	granted	to	Guardian	Group,	Inc.	-Exemption	No.		12896)

This	amendment	only	seeks	to	add	sUAS	vehicles	that	the	FAA	has	already	approved	

for	commercial	purposes	under	Section	333.		I	respectfully	submit	that	this	

amendment	request	is	not	precedent	setting	and	therefore	qualifies	for	expedited	

approval	via	the	FAA’s	summary	grant	process.		For	these	same	reasons,	I	also	

believe	that	good	cause	exists	for	not	publishing	a	summary	of	this	amendment	

request	in	the	Federal	Register.		If	you	have	any	questions,	or	need	additional	

information	to	process	this	amendment	for	my	exemption,	please	do	not	hesitate	to	

contact	me with	any	of	the	methods	listed	below.

Michael	Joseph	Indovina	VI

VI@mikesix.com

www.mikesix.com

8000	West	Manchester	Ave.	#222

Playa	Del	Rey,	CA	90293

805-455-9041