alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Junior Marshall ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 28, 1973.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Richard S. Power, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted of second degree murder, brought a timely appeal. Thereafter, he obtained a court order authorizing the reporter to furnish a certified copy of the reporter’s notes of the trial proceedings. In due course it developed that the reporter was not available and it was impossible to obtain a transcript of the trial. Upon motion filed by appellant, the court *124held a hearing for the purpose of attempting to reconstruct a record of the trial proceedings. As a consequence of that hearing, the court entered its order of June 18, 1973 finding in substance that a. record could not be reconstructed and recommending that this court grant the appellant a new trial.

Upon authority of Yancey v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 836, we reverse the judgment appealed and direct that appellant be granted a new trial.

OWEN, C. J., DOWNEY, J., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Felton A. BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No 73-545.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and E. Earl Taylor, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*State v. Wright, Fla. 1972, 265 So.2d 361; Henninger v. State, Fla.1971, 251 So.2d 862; Arrington v. State, Fla. 1970, 233 So.2d 634; Annotation, 73 A.L.R.2d 769, 809-810, 832.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31890]



[[Page 64402]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Request for Comments on the National Park Service Franchise Fee 
Determination Guideline

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is considering revising that 
portion of its concession management guideline (NPS-48) that concerns 
the franchise fees to be charged NPS concessioners. This portion of 
NPS-48 (Chapter 24, Section D) was adopted on December 31, 1986, after 
receipt and consideration of public comment solicited by an August 7, 
1985 Federal Register notice. It was amended on July 20, 1995, after 
consideration of public comment received in response to a January 17, 
1995, Federal Register  notice. It was clarified on August 11, 1997, 
after consideration of public comment received in response to a May 28, 
1997, Federal Register notice.
    NPS invites further public comment on Section D, Chapter 24, or 
NPS-48 in order to assist it in considering possible revisions to the 
document. Comments may suggest, among other matters, specific proposed 
changes to Section D as it now exists or alternative methods, in 
concept or in detail, for dealing with concession contract franchise 
fees. All written comments received will be duly considered by NPS.

COMMENT DATE: Comments on this notice must be received no later than 
January 5, 1998 to be assured of consideration.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NPS notes that NPS-48 is an agency staff 
manual and as such is not required to be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 nor promulgated as a rule after 
public notice and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553. In addition, NPS 
notes that the rulemaking requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, even if 
otherwise applicable to an agency staff manual such as NPS-48, are 
expressly not applicable to matters relating to agency management or 
personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts. 
NPS-48, as a matter concerning the administration of public property 
and contracts, falls within this exemption to the extent it may be 
considered a rule or regulation within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553. 
Nonetheless, NPS, as a matter of policy, seeks further public comment 
on Section D of Chapter 24, NPS-48, for the reasons stated above.

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
Robert K. Yearout,
Concession Program Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-31890 Filed 12-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
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 Quarterly Report of Congoleum Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger S. Marcus,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

May 16, 2005


/s/ Roger S. Marcus
-------------------
Roger S. Marcus
Chief Executive Officer

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

d0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148588

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148588

COA: 318300

Houghton CC: 2013-002677-FH

JASON THOMAS JUNTIKKA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Cunningham (Docket No. 147437) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
NO. 07-04-0445-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	OCTOBER 7, 2004

	______________________________

	TRACY YOLANDA WARD, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 48,430-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal.  Appellant and his attorney both have signed the document stating that appellant withdraws his appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							James T. Campbell

							        Justice

Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31503]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 704


Corporate Credit Unions

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance.

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

SUMMARY: On March 7, 1997, the NCUA Board issued final amendments to 
part 704 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations, which governs corporate 
credit unions. The effective date of the final amendments is January 1, 
1998. While the effective date remains the same, this document delays 
mandatory compliance with the final amendments until May 1, 1998. The 
delay gives corporate credit unions more time to meet the capital, 
staff, and infrastructure requirements of the new regulation.

DATES: Mandatory compliance with part 704, as published at 62 FR 12929 
(March 19, 1997), is delayed until May 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Schafer, Director, Office of 
Corporate Credit Unions, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-
6640; or Edward Dupcak, Director, Office of Investment Services, at the 
above address or telephone (703) 518-6620.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on November 
24, 1997.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31503 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
Exhibit 12.2







CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Brian Lee, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Scorpio Tankers 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)) 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 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: June 29, 2010








/s/ Brian Lee


Brian Lee


Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert N. Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: May 3, 2006
Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED



I,
Chris Bechtel, the Chief Executive Officer of Surna Inc. certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Surna Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017;
and



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.



Dated
this 24th day of April 2018.



|By: | /s/ Chris Bechtel                                             | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Chris
        Bechtel
        Chief
        Executive Officer |
#### INTERSTATE BLOOD BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. Maxwell SAYET, M.D., etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 41013.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 245 So.2d 142.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Cone Mills
Corporation Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements dated June 29, 1997, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           4,999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,500
<INVENTORY>                                    129,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,071
<PP&E>                                         444,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                 204,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,946
<BONDS>                                        150,148
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,395
<COMMON>                                         2,610
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   518,714
<SALES>                                        360,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               360,506
<CGS>                                          317,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  317,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,588)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,672)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,066)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,066)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

Treasury International Capital 

Data Table For December 

Table 1. Foreigners’ Transactions in Long-Term Securities with U.S. Residents 

(Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted) 

2001 Dec-02 Dec-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03

1 Gross Purchases of Domestic Securities 10,261.8 13,022.9 15,725.9 1,363.0 1,438.4 1,171.1 1,198.8

2 Gross Sales of Domestic Securities 9,740.9 12,475.4 14,981.4 1,347.2 1,397.2 1,088.7 1,118.0

3 Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1 520.8 547.6 744.5 15.8 41.1 82.4 80.8

4 Private, net /2 494.2 508.3 605.0 4.3 18.3 61.5 64.4

5 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 15.0 112.8 163.7 -2.5 -7.4 14.6 18.4

6 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 146.6 166.6 138.0 -6.3 6.4 9.3 12.9

7 Corporate Bonds, net 218.2 176.7 265.5 19.3 20.3 28.7 19.7

8 Equities, net 114.4 52.2 37.8 -6.2 -1.0 8.9 13.4

9 Official, net 26.7 39.3 139.5 11.5 22.9 20.9 16.4

10 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 3.5 7.1 109.3 8.1 19.5 18.9 11.3

11 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 17.4 28.6 24.9 3.0 3.0 1.3 4.4

12 Corporate Bonds, net 3.8 5.6 5.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.7

13 Equities, net 2.0 -2.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1

14 Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities 2,557.8 2,640.0 3,535.9 345.7 369.2 321.5 310.1

15 Gross Sales of Foreign Securities 2,577.4 2,613.0 3,572.5 357.2 382.5 316.4 315.2

16 Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /3 -19.6 27.0 -36.6 -11.5 -13.3 5.1 -5.1

17 Foreign Bonds Purchased, net 30.5 28.5 25.7 -2.7 -5.1 -3.7 -0.1

18 Foreign Equities Purchased, net -50.1 -1.5 -62.3 -8.9 -8.2 8.8 -5.0

19 Net Long-Term Securities Flows (line 3 plus line 16) 501.2 574.6 707.9 4.3 27.8 87.5 75.7

/1 Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)

/2 Includes International and Regional Organizations

/3 Net U.S. acquisitions of foreign securities (-)

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury

12 Months Through
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20388 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ROBERT LESLIE KONITSKI, a/k/a Robert Maxwell Black, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. J-95-CR-15-1
- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Leslie Konitski contends that the district court erred in imposing a fine. The district court was not clearly erroneous in its finding that Konitski had the potential ability to pay the fine in the future and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the fine. United States v. Fair , 979 F.2d 1037, 1040-42 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Altamirano , 11 F.3d 52, 53 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED.
#### CONSOLIDATED UNDERWRITERS v. THOMAS TRUCKING COMPANY et al.

No. 46202.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1971.

*556Arrington & Arrington, Hazlehurst, Rogers & Morris, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

J. Harold Graham, Jr., Crystal Springs, Armstrong & Hoffman, Hazlehurst, for appellees.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

This is a suit by Consolidated Underwriters, plaintiff-appellant, against J. Cliff Thomas, Sr., and J. Cliff Thomas, Jr., defendants-appellees, on a sworn open account, seeking a judgment for insurance premiums alleged to be due on workmen’s compensation and fleet liability insurance policies for a period of approximately three years. These policies, issued by complainant, were based on a retrospective rating plan, by which the ultimate rate of premium is determined on the basis of loss ratios and other considerations developed during the policy periods. Defendants filed counteraffidavits, denying liability for the premiums, pleading payment, and particularizing certain objections. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. §§ 1469, 1754 (1956). Although there is some question as to the sufficiency of the amended itemized account, plaintiff was permitted by the Circuit Court of Co-piah County to offer evidence on it. Nor is it necessary, in view of the disposition of this case, to examine the question of whether Thomas, Sr., was a partner with Thomas, Jr., in the Thomas Trucking Company, and whether this was a jury issue, rather than one of law.

The trial court properly submitted to the jury on conflicting evidence the issue of whether Thomas, Jr., was liable for any additional workmen’s compensation insurance premiums. The jury found in the negative, and the evidence was adequate to support that finding.

Plaintiff offered as its witness Charles W. Hayes, its state agent, to authenticate the insurer’s claim for premiums on the fleet liability policies. He had not prepared the document on which he based his testimony, and stated candidly that he was unable to verify it. Although he had copies of the insurance policies, he did not know the various changes and credits given insured. Hayes admitted that he could not state whether the information shown on the document was correct or not. It was not prepared by him or under his supervision. Accordingly, the circuit court correctly sustained defendants’ objections to his testimony concerning defendants’ liability on the fleet liability policies. There was no adequate verification of the correctness of the tendered document and of *557Hayes’ testimony concerning liability on the liability policies. This evidence was properly excluded, and the circuit court correctly gave a directed verdict for defendants on that issue. Rains v. Thorp Finance Corp., 250 Miss. 320, 327, 165 So.2d 151, 153 (1964); Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. R. Co. v. Provine, 61 Miss. 288 (1883).

Affirmed.

RODGERS, BRADY, HARPER, JJ., concur. INZER and