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

No. 73-531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1974.

Warner S. Olds, Public Defender, and William W. Herring, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Thomas M. Carney and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and on the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Either a request for a jury instruction or an objection to the failure to give an instruction is necessary to raise error on appeal; likewise, allegedly improper arguments of a prosecuting officer will be reviewed only when an objection is timely made. Henry v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So.2d 78; Alford v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So.2d 479; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 829. By reason of not having proceeded in accordance with the foregoing and finding that the matters complained of for the first time on appeal do not constitute fundamental error, the defendant cannot now raise as error the trial court’s instructions or the prosecutor’s comments. See State v. Bryan, Supreme Court of Florida Case, 287 So.2d 73, opinion filed November 14, 1973; Williams v. State, Fla. 1971, 247 So.2d 425; Willcox v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 298; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 602; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 829; DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 655. But see Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 94; Bagley v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 400.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
#### Richard BERNARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1017.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 20, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1973.

*35Huysman, Engel & Gold, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Sheridan Weinstein, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his conviction for violation of § 398.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the uniform narcotic drug law, for which he was sentenced to eighteen months, less jail time served. On consideration of the record, briefs, and argument, we hold no .reversible error has been shown.

The appellant claims it was error to admit the narcotic drug into evidence over defendant’s objection, contending the state failed to establish the continuous possession of the contraband from the time of its purchase by the undercover police officer until it was offered in evidence. That position of the appellant is not supported by the record. The test is whether or not there was indication of probable tampering with the evidence. In the circumstances shown the evidence was admissible. Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 294; Stevens v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 92. Appellant’s contention of insufficiency of the evidence is without merit. The record reveals there was substantial competent evidence to support the judgment.

Affirmed.
Security Announcement Date Auction Date Settlement Date M

6-week CMB Thursday, February 4, 2021 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Thursday, February 11, 2021 Thurs

17-week CMB Thursday, February 4, 2021 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Thursday, February 11, 2021 Thur15-week CMB Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Wednesday, February 10, 2021 Tuesday, February 16, 2021 Tue22-week CMB Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Wednesday, February 10, 2021 Tuesday, February 16, 2021 Tue

6-week CMB Thursday, February 11, 2021 Tuesday, February 16, 2021 Thursday, February 18, 2021 Thur

17-week CMB Thursday, February 11, 2021 Tuesday, February 16, 2021 Thursday, February 18, 2021 Thur

6-week CMB Thursday, February 18, 2021 Tuesday, February 23, 2021 Thursday, February 25, 2021 Thur

17-week CMB Tuesday, February 23, 2021 Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Tuesday, March 2, 2021 Tues

6-week CMB Thursday, February 25, 2021 Tuesday, March 2, 2021 Thursday, March 4, 2021 Thurs

17-week CMB Tuesday, March 2, 2021 Wednesday, March 3, 2021 Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Tue

6-week CMB Thursday, March 4, 2021 Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Thursday, March 11, 2021 Thurs

17-week CMB Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Tuesday, March 16, 2021 Tue

6-week CMB Thursday, March 11, 2021 Tuesday, March 16, 2021 Thursday, March 18, 2021 Thurs

17-week CMB Tuesday, March 16, 2021 Wednesday, March 17, 2021 Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Tue

6-week CMB Thursday, March 18, 2021 Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Thursday, March 25, 2021 Thur

17-week CMB Tuesday, March 23, 2021 Wednesday, March 24, 2021 Tuesday, March 30, 2021 Tue

Tentative Cash Management Bill (CMB) Auction Schedule through March 2021
EXHIBIT 99.1


              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code


     I,  John  L.  Larsen, the Chief Executive Officer of Crested Corp., certify
that  (i)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003
accompanying  this  statement,  fully  complies with the requirements of Section
13(a)  or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Crested  Corp.

                                    /s/  John  L.  Larsen
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    John  L.  Larsen,  Chief  Executive  Officer

                                    Date:  May  13,  2003





              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code


     I,  Robert  Scott  Lorimer,  the  Chief Financial Officer of Crested Corp.,
certify  that  (i)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31,  2003  accompanying  this statement, fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Crested  Corp.

                                   /s/  Robert  Scott  Lorimer
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Robert Scott Lorimer, Chief Financial Officer

                                   Date:  May  13,  2003
| 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:      February 26, 2009 | By:                                      | /s/      Amin      J. Khoury |   |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Amin      J. Khoury                      |
|                         | Chairman      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
----

----

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

|   | By     | /s/ Frank D. Ornelas                                                         |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Frank D. Ornelas                                                             |
|   |   |  President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |
|   |   |                                                                         |
|   |   |                                                                         |
|   |   | May 25, 2011                                                                 |

----
Corning Natural Gas Corporation Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act-filed as part of the 10-Q for Quarter Ended March 31, 2007.

Presented on signature page of 10-Q

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Corning Natural Gas Corporation (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

Dated:  May 15, 2007
#### Woodrow B. RESTUCHER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 28, 1970.

Richard M. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record and briefs having been reviewed and argument of respective counsel having been heard, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate any reversible error, the judgment and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
4.75


 


Summary
of the Second Amendment to Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on May 6, 2021, in connection with Fazenda Jatobá. 


 


Parties:
Imobiliária Jaborandi Ltda., as the owner of the land; Jaborandi Agrícola Ltda., as the operating company; and John Kudiess
and Harald Kudiess as the individuals interested in entering a rural partnership with the abovementioned companies.


 


Purpose:  Amend
the Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on June 30, 2020, as amended on February 8,
2021, in connection with the possession and exploitation of 3,386 arable hectares of Fazenda Jatobá,
in order to (i) ratify the existence of a reimbursement in the amount of R$672,642.95 that
is pending in favor of John Kudiess and Harald Kudiess arising out of investments performed by John Kudiess and Harald Kudiess under
the Rural Partnership Agreement; and (ii) reduce to 2,169 hectares the area exploited under the Rural Partnership Agreement.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1385

_____________________________

ISABEL DEL PINO ALLEN,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CLERK 

JOHN TOMASINO,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

John C. Cooper, Judge.

June 10, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Isabel Del Pino Allen, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Charles Joseph F. Schreiber 

Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### MERCHANTS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. Malcolm J. GUTHRIE, Jr., and C. Williams Fox, III, and Construction Supply & Service Corporation.

No. 3316.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

May 5, 1969.

*659James H. Leveque, III, Clifton S. Carl, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

W. Monroe Stephenson, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before YARRUT, SAMUEL and CHASEZ, JJ.

YARRUT, Judge.

This suit on a promissory note was instituted by the payee-holder against the maker and endorsers. Defendants have prosecuted this appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Appellants did not make an appearance when the case was regularly called for argument, nor have they filed a brief herein. The Appellee alone appeared, submitted the case and moved that the judgment be affirmed.

Since Appellants have not pointed out any error in the judgment of the Trial Court, and as there is no error patent on the face of the record, we must affirm that judgment under the presumption it is correct. See Alice v. Woods, La.App., 124 So.2d 770.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Jorge RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-1002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32669]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-AGL-27 ]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Mason, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an incomplete name in a final rule that 
was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1997, Airspace 
Docket Number 97-AGL-27. The Final Rule modified Class E airspace at 
Mason, MI.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, January 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle M. Behm, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, AGL-520, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, 
Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 294-7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    Federal Register document 97-28605, Airspace Docket Number 97-AGL-
27, published on October 29, 1997 (62 FR 56067), modified the 
description of the Class E airspace area at Mason, MI. An incomplete 
name was discovered in the legal description for this airspace. This 
action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
airspace designation for the Class E airspace area at Mason, MI, 
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (FR Document 97-28605), is 
corrected as follows:


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

    On page 56067, column 3, line 25, in the Class E airspace 
designation for Mason, MI, correct ``Eaton, MI'' to read ``Eaton 
Rapids, MI.''

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November 12, 1997.
David B. Johnson,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 97-32669 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.2

                  CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                               TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                             (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              MARCH       DECEMBER
                                                               2001         2000
                                                            ----------   ----------
<S>                                                         <C>          <C>
EARNINGS
       Net Income                                           $  577,253   $  583,715
       Income Tax                                              298,179      289,926
                                                            ----------   ----------

                Total Earnings Before Income Tax               875,432      873,641

FIXED CHARGES*                                                 401,609      392,347
                                                            ----------   ----------
                Total Earnings Before Income Tax
                   and Fixed Charges                        $1,277,041   $1,265,988
                                                            ==========   ==========


       * Fixed Charges

       Interest on Long-Term Debt                           $  331,879   $  318,842
       Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense       12,474       12,584
       Interest on Component of Rentals                         17,609       17,697
       Other Interest                                           39,648       43,224
                                                            ----------   ----------

                Total Fixed Charges                         $  401,609   $  392,347
                                                            ==========   ==========


       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                         3.18         3.23
</TABLE>
#### Victor L. BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-272.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 2, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephen Lindsey Gorman, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Moreover the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. *McDonald v. State,*321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th *795DC A 1975). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
258 La. 566

#### Mrs. Patricia Lee SHERWOOD, Widow of Edmond P. SNELL v. Mrs. Mercedes STEIN, also known as Mrs. Mercedes Stein Miorana.

No. 51313.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: Mrs. Patricia Lee Sherwood, widow' o‘f' Edmond P. Snell, individually and as administrator of the estate of the minor children, Sheri L. Snell, Timothy K. Snell and Christopher S. Snell applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson, 244 So.2d 647.
**Exhibit32.2**

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

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Countrywide Financial Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric P. Sieracki, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.
| /s/ Eric P. Sieracki    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Eric P. Sieracki        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 9, 2007             |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toCountrywide Financial Corporation and will be retained by Countrywide FinancialCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66620-66621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-126-000]

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

December 15, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 11, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline 
Company (Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed 
in Docket No. CP98-126-000, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 
157.216(b) for approval to abandon an inactive 2-inch delivery tap and 
meter station and 2-inch delivery lateral, under the blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) 
of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request 
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Koch Gateway proposes to abandon by removal an inactive 2-inch tap 
and meter station and to abandon in place approximately 150 feet of 2-
inch delivery lateral that formerly served the Shelbyville city gate on 
behalf of Entex Inc. (Entex), a local distribution company, in Shelby 
County, Texas. Koch Gateway states that Entex would continue to serve 
its customers from its existing distribution system. It is further 
stated that service to the end-users would not be affected. Koch 
Gateway verifies that Entex agrees to the

[[Page 66621]]

proposed abandonment. Koch Gateway states that Entex has not used this 
point since 1988. Koch Gateway further states that it would plug and 
remove the tap, remove all above ground facilities and after cleaning 
the pipe and filling it with either water or nitrogen, would abandon 
the lateral in place.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33161 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```