alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30696 Summary Calendar

MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS GARY HURFORD, President; RAY L. HUNT, Chairman; HUNT OIL COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees,

___________________________________________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS MILLS TIMMONS & FLOWERS, Succession of Meaker White, Second Judicial District Court in and for

Claiborne Parish, Louisiana, Defendant-Appellee,

___________________________________________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS JAMES HATCH, Attorney, Hatch & Smith, Defendant-Appellee,

___________________________________________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS1 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.


### 2 JOHN MONTGOMERY, Attorney, Second Judicial District, Defendant-Appellee,

___________________________________________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS GARY HURFORD, President; RAY L. HUNT, Chairman,

Hunt Oil Company, Defendants-Appellees,

___________________________________________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS WAYNE TIMMONS, Mills Timmons & Flowers, Defendant-Appellee,

Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-584-G)

December 26, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1 Mary Ann Lovell, proc eeding pro se, brought the consolidated actions, and numerous others, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, registering numerous complaints

### 3

against various defendants having to do with mineral production attributable to the interest of Meaker Glov er White in minerals underlying certain lands in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. Following consolidation of the captioned cases, the district court considered
defendants’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) and granted each motion dismissing plaintiff’s claims. We have carefully reviewed the briefs on file and the record and are satisfied that the

reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order filed
June 14, 1996 in the consolidated matters are correct. We therefore affirm the district court’ s dismissal of the captioned cases essentially for the reasons given by it in its memorandum and order.
AFFIRMED.
#### AMERICAN LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Billy Joe STRICKLAND, Appellee.

No. R-188.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 2, 1972.

Roy E. Campbell, of Timmel & Campbell, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

W. Paul Thompson, DeFuniak Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Media Events Organized by White House Office of Media Affairs

October 5

Interview with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network

Interview on the Warren Ballentine Show

October 12

White House.gov Weekly Online Video Chat

October 14

The Tom Joyner Morning Show with Roland Martin

The Joe Madison Show

October 15

Trotter Group Media Briefing

October 16

Washington Watch with Roland Martin (TV One)

October 21

Telemundo Interview

October 22

Briefing on CFPB and Remittances at the Foreign Press Center

October 26

Conference Call with Student Newspaper Reporters and Editors

November 8

iVillage Listen and Learn Online Video Chat
[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: 97-31706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 97-ACE-05]


Removal of Class D Airspace, Marshall Army Airfield, Ft. Riley, 
KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which removed the Class D airspace area at Marshall Army Airfield, Ft. 
Riley, Kansas. The control tower at Marshall Army Airfield is not in 
operation and will not be operational in the foreseeable future.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 62 FR 17052 became 
effective 0901 UTC July 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on April 9, 1997 
(62 FR 17052). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, was received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on July 17, 1997. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this document confirms that the direct final rule became 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on October 23, 1997.
Christopher R. Blum,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 97-31706 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### WINDOWMASTER CORPORATION, etc., Petitioner, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, etc., Respondent.

No. 43197.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 6, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 776.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
. RULE 200 - PERMIT P.EQUinEHENTS I . . . I

**Au~'lori**ty 

## .!:£ Construct £E_ lvlodif,r .(a) 

### .... f •••.. . i :. .I_...·

**~**

### .. A written authorization shall be obtained from the Air ·"· Pollution Control District prior to starting construction, ·., : .modification, operation or use of any stationary or indirect



### ~**}~: -~-**  

## i

**~1~** source which may ca\}.se, potentiu.lly cause, reduce, control .. · - ...... 

# . . .

· 

# '
...: .. .

# , :.· .. :. 

## .. . ; or eliminate the emission of air contaminants. A single

**-~-** ,:

**;~-;/.** authorization ·may be issued for all components of an , · ' integrated system or process; An .Authority to Construct ·· · ·' shall remain in effect for one (1) year or until a Permit to _.·.. Operate is issued, l-rhichever occurs first. If the Authority· · to Construct expires prior to issuance of a Permit to .· ·._ Operate, the authorization may be extended at the request of · .·· ·: ._ ·_ applicant. An annual renewal fee may be **assesse~;.** . .· ··. Construction .not in accordance with this Authority to Construct shall be sufficient reason to deny a Perm$-t . to.· Operate.
#### Clarence E. LANTHRIP et al. v. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley WYLIE.

SC 334.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 31, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1974.

*112Volz, Capouano, Wampold & Prestwood, Montgomery, for appellants.

Elno A. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, for ap-pellees.

FAULKNER, Justice.

Appellants appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County that the boundary line between the parties is established according to the survey made on November 28, 1964, by Edward G. Johns, Registered Land Surveyor. The order of the trial court is affirmed.

A decree of the trial court will not be reversed in a suit to establish a boundary line unless it is palpably wrong and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Varner v. Carr, 291 Ala. 654, 286 So.2d 294 (1973). Deese v. Odom, 283 Ala. 420, 218 So.2d 134 (1969); Lovelace v. McMillan, 265 Ala. 290, 90 So.2d 822 (1956).

In this case both tracts of land were owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gardner up to the mid 1940’s. Mr. Gardner constructed a fence between the tracts and sold one tract to an intervening title holder. In 1950 the Lanthrips bought *one*tract and the Wylies bought the other. Although the fence was not in good repair (having become intermingled with a hedge and covered with kudzu) it continued to exist until Wylie tore it down. '

The Lanthrips claimed to the fence from 1950 to 1971. The Wylies did not controvert this claim until 1970-1971. However, the testimony is not conclusive on this point.

A survey by a registered surveyor of both tracts was made in *1964. It*appears that nothing was said about the fence, line, or survey from 1964 to 1971. The evidence is contradicting as to whether the parties considered the fence line and the survey to be one and the same.

The trial court established the boundary line based upon the evidence before it, heard ore tenus. Its decree is presumed correct on appeal, and unless it is plainly erroneous and unjust, the decree will not be disturbed. From the record before us there is no evidence tending to show that the trial court’s decree was plainly erroneous or unjust.

Affirmed.

HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, HAR-WOOD and MADDOX, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS, INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. (IN
THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,409,054
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                 1,124,455
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                   1,210,534
<EQUITIES>                              574,398
<MORTGAGE>                                    0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                 0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                        4,258,244
<CASH>                                   70,589
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                      464,159
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                   67,578
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        5,253,249
<POLICY-LOSSES>                       3,116,038
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                     386,652
<POLICY-OTHER>                                0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                         0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 35,467
<OTHER-SE>                            1,574,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          5,253,249
<PREMIUMS>                            1,380,570
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                     222,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                      120,899
<OTHER-INCOME>                             (229)
<BENEFITS>                            1,020,888
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>              (2,826)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                    381,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         323,351
<INCOME-TAX>                             75,828
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     247,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            247,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              7.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                              7.10
<RESERVE-OPEN>                        2,522,728
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                   1,080,377
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                       (59,489)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                      343,974
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                        543,539
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                       2,656,103
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                  59,489
        

<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linda Jeffords, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 835]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.), rendered October 13, 2000, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of grand larceny in the third degree and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to an indeterminate prison term of 1 to 3 years and the payment of $30,000 in restitution. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. The judgment is therefore affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see, People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, *lv denied*67 NY2d 650).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
254 La. 835

#### Alvin P. LICHTENTAG v. Mr. Louis BOWENS, Jr.

No. 50105.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Alvin P. Lichtentag applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 225 So.2d 101.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**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 Hugoton Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and 

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

 
  Simmons Bank,  Trustee for Hugoton Royalty TrustMarch 29, 2019  By /S/ NANCY WILLIS   Nancy Willis   Vice President**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8573
LITTLE TOM CHILDRESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEVE GARRETT, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-366-R) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Little Tom Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Sanderson Lewis, SANDERS, JOHNSON & LEWIS, P.L.C., Lexington, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant failed to allege, and the record fails to contain, facts which support a reasonable inference that Appellant was injured, if at all, in more than a de minimis way. Accordingly, we find that any force used by the Defendant did not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Norman v. Taylor , 25 F.3d 1259, 1262-63 (4th Cir. 1994) (in banc), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3538 (U.S. Jan. 17, 1995) (No. 94-6011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Preferred Financial Resources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Roger W. Sherman, Chief Executive 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 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.

Roger Sherman
-----------------------
Roger W. Sherman
Chief Executive Officer
March 18, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32944]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Disposal and 
Reuse of the Evans Subpost Fort Monmouth, New Jersey

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed action evaluated by this FEIS is the disposal of 
the Evans Subpost Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in accordance with the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 
as amended. The FEIS addresses the environmental consequences of the 
disposal and subsequent reuse of the 215 acres. Three alternative 
methods of disposal are analyzed: encumbered disposal, unencumbered 
disposal and retention of the property in a caretaker status (i.e., the 
no action alternative). The Army's preferred alternative for disposal 
of the Evans Subpost is encumbered disposal, which involves conveying 
the property with conditions imposed on historic resources, remedial 
activities, special easements and restrictive covenants to create or 
maintain buffer zones between sensitive areas or adjoining parcels. The 
FEIS concludes that the alternatives analyzed will have both long-term 
adverse and short-term adverse effects and that the significant adverse 
effects will result under the medium and high intensity reuse 
scenarios. The FEIS identifies mitigation measures that can be taken in 
the future to avoid or reuse any adverse impacts from reuse.

DATES: The public review period for this document ends 30 days after 
the date of publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice 
of Availability in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the FEIS are available for review at the Wall 
Township Public Library, 2700 Allaire Road, Wall, New Jersey 07719. 
Copies of the FEIS may also be obtained by writing to Dr. Susan Rees, 
U.S. Army Engineer District, ATTN: CESAM-PD-E, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, 
Alabama 36628-0001 or by telephone at (334) 694-4141 or telefax (334) 
690-2721.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft EIS (DEIS) was made available for 
public review and comment. A notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS 
was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 22058) on May 13, 1996. 
The Army conducted a public meeting on May 29, 1996, to receive public 
input on the DEIS. Display advertisements informing the public were 
taken out in the local newspaper.

    Dated: December 4, 1997.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health), OASA (I,L&E).
[FR Doc. 97-32944 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-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 Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.,
President and Chief Executive 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly resents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Daxor
Corporation. /s/ Joseph
  Feldschuh, M.D.Joseph
  Feldschuh, M.D.
  President and ChiefExecutive OfficerNovember 14,
  2006 35
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09213**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 09213\09213_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09213\09213_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 09213\09213_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09213\09213_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09213\09213_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09213\09213_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09213\09213_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09213\Certification Statement Plant ID 09213.pdf Plant certification statement x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-1.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-2.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-3.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-4.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-5.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-6.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-7.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-8.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_D-9.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_Map 1.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09213\Supporting Documentation\09213_Map 2.bmp Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.