alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Leonard ADCOCK, Appellant, v. Carmen ADCOCK, Appellee.

No. 71-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**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 SemGroup Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carlin G. Conner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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.

 
| Date: May 30, 2014 |                                  |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |                                  |
|                    |                                  |
|                    | /s/ Carlin G. Conner                  |
|                    | Carlin G. Conner                      |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Sooner Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, R.C. Cunningham II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Date:  July 25, 2007

                                                      /s/ R.C. Cunningham II
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      R.C. Cunningham II
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.








                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
#### Cora Wayne WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Thomas G. WRIGHT, Appellee.

No. O-328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 22, 1971.

Madigan, Parker, Gatlin & Swedmark, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Cotten, Shivers, Gwynn & Daniel, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Rieder v. Rieder, 157 So.2d 93 (Fla.App.1963), and Ludacer v. Ludacer, 211 So.2d 64 (Fla.App.1968).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cox Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, James O. Robbins, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Jimmy W. Hayes, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the
best of our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

                                            /s/ James O. Robbins
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Name: James O. Robbins
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                            Date: August 4, 2004

                                            /s/ Jimmy W. Hayes
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Name: Jimmy W. Hayes
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                            Date: August 4, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other documentation authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to Cox and will be retained
by Cox and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This certification "accompanies" the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Cox under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q,
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sam DODD, Jr., Respondent.

No. 39584.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 2, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Alton S. Beasley, Stuart, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. After argument and upon further consideration, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued, and it is hereby discharged.

On remand, the case is to be tried anew without prejudice to the State laying proper predicate for the introduction of the Respondent’s alleged confession in conformity with the decision of the District Court. In this connection, we call attention to the case of Williams v. State, Fla.1945, 22 So.2d 821, which sets forth pertinent guidelines for the determination of the voluntariness of an alleged confession.

The writ must be and is discharged and the petition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### SECURITY GUARD AND PATROL SERVICE, INC., et al., Petitioners, Cross-Respondents, v. Olin Albert JONES, Sr., et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 39957.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**Clean	Power	Plan Goal	Computation	Call	with	the	State	of	Wyoming**  **06 /**  **20 /2014** 

**D iscussion	Questions**  Specific Question from Al Minier, Chairman, Wyoming Public Service commission: The Wyoming Public Service Commission would like to discuss the calculation of the Wyoming figures for the "EE Generation" piece of the overall equation for determining Wyoming's targets. After looking through the Goal Computation and Abatement Measures TSDs, could EPA explain which inputs were used from which source documents, and whether they were adjusted in some way.
#### MATERIALS OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, and Rex Youngquist, individually, Appellants, v. D. H. MATTHEWS, Appellee.

No. 69-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

*525Joseph A. McGowan, Miami, for appellants.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The appellants were the plaintiffs in the trial court. They appeal from an order granting a new trial upon the issue of damages only. The trial judge set forth the grounds for the new trial as “the Court is on the opinion that the verdict of the jury was so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience of the Court and could be based only on conjecture and guesswork.” Appellant seeks the reinstatement of the jury verdict upon three points: (1) the record does not support the court’s finding that the judgment is excessive; (2) the record does not support the finding of the court that the verdict could only have been based upon conjecture and guesswork; (3) the trial court committed reversible error when upon finding that the verdict was excessive it did not enter a remittitur.

An order granting a new trial comes to this court clothed in a strong presumption of correctness. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; City of Clearwater v. McClury, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 545. Where the ground given by the trial judge is that of excessiveness of the verdict, the appellant has the burden of overcoming this presumption by demonstrating from the record that the trial judge greatly abused his discretion. See Clark v. Russo, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So.2d 764. The appellants here have not met that burden.

Appellants also urge that the trial court erred by not ordering acceptance of a remittitur as an alternative to the granting of a new trial on the issue of damages. See Love Realty Corp. v. O’Brien, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 532 But in the instant case the trial judge found that the evidence as to damages was speculative. Furthermore the amount of excess does not clearly appear from the record. In such circumstances we cannot say that it was error for the court to refuse to enter a remitti-tur. Cf. De La Vallina v. De La Vallina, 90 Fla. 905, 107 So. 339 (1926).

Accordingly the order granting a new trial is affirmed.
#### MAYFLOWER REALTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Richard D. TAYLOR, as Director of Lee County, Florida, Building and Zoning Department, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-608.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 13, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Michael Mathews, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aspen Group, Inc.; 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.





Date: August 28, 2019



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael Mathews                                                  
|Michael Mathews
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Robert Edward O’LEARY and Olive E. Schmidt, Petitioners, v. John W. WATSON and Helen E. Watson, etc., Respondents.

No. 42700.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 263 So.2d 643.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 

7 April 2016

Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) 

Dear Sir or Madam: KellAIR Aerial Solutions, LLC has prepared the following addendum to Exemption # 11823 under 

Docket FAA-2015-1106

This addendum adds any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 

at regulatory docket FAA–2007–3330 at www.regulations.gov, (which is updated regularly) when weighing less than 55 

pounds including payload. 

Allowing the use of any aircraft on the List of Approved Unmanned Systems (UAS) has been used recently in exemptions:

x Exemption No. 15233 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5418 

x Exemption No. 15234 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5360 

x Exemption No. 15235 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5272 

x Exemption No. 15236 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5253 

x Exemption No. 15237 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5236 

The exemptions listed above are identical in nature to KellAIR’s exemption and therefore no new precedent would be 

set by extending the same List to KellAIR Aerial Solutions. 

In addition to the above mentioned change, KellAIR would also like to amend it’s address on file.

The amended contact information of the applicant is:

KellAIR Aerial Solutions, LLC

756 S. Edgemon Ave

Winter Springs, FL 32708

(757)650-7018

brad@kellair.net

This addendum makes no other changes to the currently approved exemption 11823, reasons for exemption request, 

and/or operating parameters.

Sincerely,

Harrison Keller

Owner

KellAIR Aerial Solutions

756 S Edgemon Ave

Winter Springs, FL 32708
256 La. 369

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Donald Lee YATES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50679.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Donald Lee Yates applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made in the application does not warrant either our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-07-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-08-1997
<CASH>                                           1,732
<SECURITIES>                                    33,624
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                       706
<INVENTORY>                                     23,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,403
<PP&E>                                         239,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                (113,464)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         6,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,458
<SALES>                                        246,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,824
<CGS>                                           41,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  240,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       311 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,752)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,752)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)
        









</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SMTEK International, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Kirk A Waldron, Interim President of the Company, certify, to the best of myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)               the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 8, 2004 |
|------------------------|
|                   |   |
| By:                    |  /s/ Kirk A. Waldron |   |
|                   | Kirk A. Waldrn |
|                   | Interim President |
|                   | (principal executive officer) |
|                   | SMTEK International, Inc. |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 17

RIN 2900-AI60


Guidelines for Furnishing Sensori-neural Aids (e.g., Eyeglasses, 
Contact Lenses, Hearing Aids)

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document affirms the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
medical regulations concerning when VA will furnish veterans with 
sensori-neural aids (e.g., eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids), 
which implement a requirement imposed in the Veteran's Health Care 
Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-262.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective December 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Downs, Jr., Chief 
Consultant, Prosthetics and Sensory Aids Service Strategic Healthcare 
Group (113), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 273-8515.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 3, 1997, VA published in the Federal 
Register an interim final rule with request for comments (62 FR 30240). 
This added a new section (17.149, 38 CFR part 17). A 60-day comment 
period ended August 4, 1997, and one comment was received. However, 
that comment dealt with resources rather than substantive content of 
the interim final rule.
    Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule 
document, we are adopting the provisions of the interim final rule as a 
final rule without change. This final rule also affirms the information 
in the interim final rule document concerning the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.

    Approved: December 1, 1997.
Hershel W. Gober,
Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-32106 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Horizon Technology Finance Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company”)
for the annual period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr., as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge that:



(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 Registrant.



|/s/ Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr. |                            
|-------------------------- | ---------------------------
|Name:                      | Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr.     
|Title:                     | Chief Executive Officer and
|                           | Chairman of the Board      



Date: March 11, 2014
Exhibit 11.2 CPI Corp.
Computation of Per Common Share Earnings (Loss) - Basic(Unaudited) 12 Weeks
  Ended
  
  24 Weeks
  EndedJuly 24,
  2004
  
  July 19,
  2003
  
  July 24,
  2004
  
  July 19,
  2003Basic:Net loss applicable to
  common shares:From continuing operations
  
  $
  (6,519,237
  )
  $
  (16,843
  )
  $
  (14,168,105
  )
  $
  (2,294,116
  )From discontinued
  operations
  
  
  (2,587,783
  )
  
  (808,683
  )
  
  (3,737,129
  )
  
  (1,261,201
  )Net loss
  
  $
  (9,107,020
  )
  $
  (825,526
  )
  $
  (17,905,234
  )
  $
  (3,555,317
  )Shares:Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding
  
  
  18,413,448
  
  
  18,339,171
  
  
  18,389,738
  
  
  18,339,127Less: Treasury stock -
  weighted average
  
  
  (10,425,262
  )
  
  (10,238,303
  )
  
  (10,345,359
  )
  
  (10,238,303
  )Weighted average number of
  common and common equivalent shares outstanding
  
  
  7,988,186
  
  
  8,100,868
  
  
  8,044,379
  
  
  8,100,824Net loss per common and
  common equivalent shares:From continuing operations
  
  $
  (0.82
  )
  $
  
  
  $
  (1.76
  )
  $
  (0.28
  )From discontinued
  operations
  
  
  (0.32
  )
  
  (0.10
  )
  
  (0.46
  )
  
  (0.16
  )Net loss
  
  $
  (1.14
  )
  $
  (0.10
  )
  $
  (2.22
  )
  $
  (0.44
  )
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A1 61 0 . J ONES et a l v . ATLANTA BOYS CHOI R, I NC. et a l

.

Hav i n g no t i fi e d t h i s Co u rt o f a fi n al i zed s et t l em en t in t h e ab o v e-s ty l ed cas e,

t h e Ap p el l an t s ’ m o t i o n to wi th d raw ap p eal p urs u a n t t o t h is Co u rt ’ s Ru l e 4 1 (g ) (1 )
i s h ereb y GRANTED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## April 02, 2020

04/02/2020