alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jessie MOORE v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the PORT OF NEW ORLEANS et al. Charles Edward CLARK v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the PORT OF NEW ORLEANS et al.

Nos. 52154, 52336.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1973.

Charles R. Maloney, New Orleans, for plaintiff-applicants.

Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, Sumter D. Marks, Jr., Charles M. Lanier, Cyrus C. Guidry, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.

DIXON, Justice.

These cases were consolidated for argument because they involved the identical issue.

In Moore v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 256 So.2d 138, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a damage suit against the Board, the plaintiff alleging that he had been injured when his leg went through a hole in a rotted wharf owned by the Board.

In Clark v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 258 So.2d 412, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a damage suit against the Board brought after plaintiff was injured when the forklift he was operating fell through some rotted timbers on the Board’s wharf.

In each case the Board filed exceptions which were sustained for the reason that the Board is an agency of the State, and protected by the State’s sovereign immunity from suit in tort.

For the reasons assigned in Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans v. Splendour Shipping & Enterprises Company, Inc. et al., La., 273 So.2d 19, this day decided, both cases are reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents and assigns reasons and is of the opinion a rehearing should be granted.

McCALEB, J.,

dissents for the reasons given in his concurring opinion in Board of Com’rs v. Splendour Shipping & E. Co., Inc., La., 273 So.2d 19, this day decided.

SUMMERS, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent in these consolidated cases for the reasons assigned in my dissent to Board of Commissioners of Port of New Orleans, An Agency of the State of Louisiana v. Splendour Shipping & Enterprises Company, Inc. et al., La., 273 So.2d 19.
#### Shirley Moore WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-358.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, also of petit larceny under an additional count of the information. She was found guilty and sentenced to a term of one year in the Dade County Jail on the breaking and entering count, and sentenced to a term of six months, to run concurrently, on the petit larceny count.

Appellant contends that the evidence introduced was circumstantial and failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, therefore, it was error for the trial court to deny her motion for judgment of acquittal.

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs of counsel and have concluded that the trial judge was correct in denying the motion of defendant. We find sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the convictions. No reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgments and sentences are affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2011 (the Report), I, Sabrina Y. Ren,
Chief Financial 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|               |  | 
|March 30, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Sabrina Y. Ren     
|               |  |  |  | Sabrina Y. Ren         
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP92-122-005]


Trunkline LNG Company; Notice of Annual Reconciliation Report

February 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1997 Trunkline LNG Company (TLC) 
tendered for filing working papers reflecting its third annual 
reconciliation report.
    TLC states that the information is submitted pursuant to Article 
VIII, Section 4 of the Stipulation and Agreement in the above-captioned 
proceeding which requires TLC to submit, on an annual basis, a report 
of the cost and revenues which result from the operation of Rate 
Schedule PLNG-2 dated June 26, 1987, as amended December 1, 1989.
    TLC states that copies of this filing have been served on all 
participants in the proceeding and applicable state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protest must be filed on 
or before February 12, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3293 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
----

**Exhibit        32.1**

| (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 result of operations of the                  Company. |

|   |   /s/  Harold                  F. Herron |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Harold                  F. Herron,                           |   |
|   | President                                                    |   |
|   | August                  14, 2007                             |   |
#### John P. MILLER, Jerry Lyman and Thomas Striegel, Appellants, v. ALLEN ENGINEERING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 76-2711.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 16, 1978.

*858William T. McCluan of Crofton, Holland, Starling, Harris & Severs, P. A., and Palmer W. Collins, Melbourne, for appellants.

Joe Teague Caruso and Curtis R. Mosley of Wolfe, Kirschenbaum, Caruso & Mosley, Cocoa Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings against the appellant, in which he determined among other things, that the basis of appellant’s action was known to the appellant during the pendency of previous litigation between the parties, and hence, the action should have been filed as a counterclaim. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is predicated solely on the contents of the pleadings. The pleadings herein are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to support the trial court’s determination. Accordingly, the judgment is hereby reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         241,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               438,428
<PP&E>                                          29,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,276)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 515,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          701,199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       945,569
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,130,903)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   515,865
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,570
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  752,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (748,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   101,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (647,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (647,668)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
257 La. 614

#### WARD CHAIN SAW SUPPLY COMPANY, Inc. v. A. D. DEVILLE, d/b/a Deville Saw Company.

No. 51148.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Ward Chain Saw Supply Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 242 So.2d 41.

Writ refused. Case involved only questions of facts.
EXHIBIT

| in thousands, except share and per share data                              |   | 12 Weeks Ended |       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|------------|
|                                                                       |   | April 30, 2011 |       |   | May 1, 2010 |   |
| Diluted:                                                                   |   |           |       |   |   |   |
| Net income applicable to common shares                                     |   | $              | 747        |   |   | $ | 6,540 |   |
|                                                                       |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shares:                                                                    |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                       |   |           | 9,092,429  |   |   |   | 9,302,882 |   |
| Dilutive effect of exercise of certain stock options                       |   |           | 4,244      |   |   |   | 1,814 |   |
| Less: Treasury stock - weighted average                                    |   |           | (2,098,333 | ) |   |   | (2,128,219 | ) |
|                                                                       |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding |   |           | 6,998,340  |   |   |   | 7,176,477 |   |
|                                                                       |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income per common and common equivalent shares                         |   | $              | 0.11       |   |   | $ | 0.91 |   |
|                                                                       |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
#### Thomas WALKER and Joanne G. Walker, Appellants, v. WOODGATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. et al., Appellees.

No. HH-354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 19, 1978.

W. Ralph Durrance, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellants.

Carl R. Pennington, Jr. and Everett P. Anderson, of Pennington, Wilkinson & Sauls, Tallahassee, for appellees.

SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.

This appeal presents several complex questions concerning the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77e. While the judgment from which the appeal was taken is ostensibly a summary judgment, it is evident that the trial court, presented with motions for summary judgment both by appellants and by appellees, undertook at the instance of the parties to decide all factual issues in the light of the entire record. No claim is made by appellants that issues of fact should not have been resolved by the trial judge when the case was submitted. On less than a full record of the proceedings below, we are invited by appellants to overturn the factual findings made by the trial court. We decline to decide the complex questions presented on such a record. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                         $   686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,862<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,263
<PP&E>                                          18,456<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           663
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,853
<SALES>                                         48,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,896
<CGS>                                           38,073<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                       526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                978
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $   978
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $   .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $   .89
<FN>
<F1>Net of allowance for doubtful accounts
<F2>Net of accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
<F3>Exclusive of depreciation, depletion and amortization
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank BENSCOTER.

No. 62422.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Frank Benscoter applying for supervisory writs. Parish of Vermilion.

Writ denied. On the showing made the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28649]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

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

DATES: Date and Time: Friday, December 12, 2014; 9:30 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Place: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, 
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public 
Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Program Planning
     Review and Vote of the 2015 Statutory Enforcement Report 
Discovery Plan
     Discussion and Vote on Updating Select Commission Reports
III. Management and Operations
     Presentations from the Illinois and Georgia SAC Chairs on 
their Immigration Projects
     Staff Director's Report
IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments
     Indiana
V. Adjourn Meeting

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Marlene Sallo,
Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-28649 Filed 12-3-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee (TTAC) 

Public Meeting

March 17, 2021

1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. ET

via teleconference Call- in Number: 1 888 455-7136 or 

1 773 799 3680

Participant Code 6476771

Conference Number 1970361

 Agenda

Designated Federal Officer Krishna Vallabhaneni

Chairperson Lacey Horn

Call to Order

Roll Call by Chairperson Horn

Tribal Opening

Welcoming Remarks from Secretary Janet Yellen

Approval of Minutes from December 9, 2020 Meeting

TTAC Committee Updates

Subcommittee Updates

• General Welfare Exclusion Act 

• Dual Taxation

• Tribal Pensions 

Public Comments

Other Items 

Closing Business

Adjourn
#### James Ray MOODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-473.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1974.

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

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*66PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to Skov v. State, 1974, 292 So.2d 64. For the reasons stated therein, the judgment of conviction for breaking and entering a phone booth with intent to commit a misdemean- or, to-wit, petit larceny, is reversed. The judgment of conviction for possession of burglary tools is affirmed.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Availability of Government Owned Invention for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Government Owned Invention for 
Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: U.S. Patent Number 4,906,879, entitled ``Terbium-Dysprosium 
Magnetostrictive High Power Transducers,'' is assigned to the United 
States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is 
available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for copies of the patent 
cited or further information should be directed to Mr. Dick Bloomquist, 
Director, Technology Transfer, Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock 
Division, Code 0117, 9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-
5700, telephone number: (301) 227-4299.

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207; 37 CFR part 404; 32 CFR part 746)
Michael I. Quinn,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-32908 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, James A. Israel, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2010 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U. S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 
|                          | JOHN   DEERE OWNER TRUST 2010      |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                          |                               |
|                          | By: John Deere Capital Corporation |
|                          | (Servicer)                         |
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
| Date:   January 26, 2012 | By:                                | */s/   James A. Israel* |   |
|                          |                               | James   A. Israel |
|                          |                               | President |

 

----