alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frances G. REED, Appellant, v. Ernest L. REED, Jr., Appellee.

No. N-118.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 18, 1971.

*450John M. Coe, of Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.

Walter J. Smith, of Smith, Tolton & Wolff, Ft. Walton Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final judgment in a divorce suit, the issue herein being the failure to award alimony to appellant. This matter has been before the court earlier at which time we entered our decision remanding the case for further action. Said decision is reported at 226 So.2d 114.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and the arguments of counsel, it is our view that there is a sufficient evidentiary showing of a likelihood that appellee’s financial circumstances will materially improve hereafter, thus enabling him to make alimony payments to appellant in the future. Alternatively, the circumstances of appellant may be so changed in the future as to justify or require the award of alimony payments in the event of such change. In order to enable the court below to consider an application for alimony by appellant in the event of changing circumstances by either party, the judgment reviewed in this appeal is hereby amended so as to expressly retain jurisdiction of this cause for future award of alimony upon proper showing.

Except as modified by retaining jurisdiction in accordance with the above, the order appealed is

Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
# MarApr
#### James Lester MILLER et al., Petitioners, v. Edith T. CAMBLIN et al., Respondents.

No. 44298.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 61.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,948
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (55)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,608
<PP&E>                                          10,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,607
<BONDS>                                          4,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,050
<SALES>                                         15,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,072
<CGS>                                           10,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,823
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,916
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32**

 

THE DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned officersof The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”) hereby certify that theIssuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2004 which this certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatthe information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuerand will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
| /s/ James V. Mahoney | ** ** |
|----------------------|------------|
| James V. Mahoney     | ** ** |

 

 
| /s/ Pamela Holdren |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| Pamela Holdren     |   |

 

 

Date:  November 15, 2004

 

----
MET -- Exhibit 10.98 (Ex 10.58 to the 2008 Annual Report)






Exhibit 10.98


AMENDMENT #1 TO THE METLIFE AUXILIARY PENSION PLAN
(As amended and restated effective January 1, 2008)


     The MetLife Auxiliary Pension Plan is hereby amended, effective October 1, 2008, as follows:


1. Part I, Article 2, Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following after subsection (d):


"(e) holds the title of Chief Auditor, Treasurer, Tax Director, Corporate Secretary or Chief Actuary of the Company or is subject to the Company's mandatory retirement policy."


The left-justified language that followed subsection (d) prior to this amendment (and that now appears after new subsection (e) as added by this amendment), will be maintained without change


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be adopted in its name and behalf this 24th day of October, 2008, by its officer thereunto duly authorized.


                                        
	
		
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


	 
	 

	By:
	/s/  Margery Brittain

	 
	Margery Brittain, Plan Administrator






	
	
	ATTEST:

	 

	/s/  Bonita Haskins





1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Neil Harrison, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A Equivalent (Amendment
      No. 1) and this Form 10-Q/A Equivalent (Amendment No. 2) of Birds Eye
      Foods, Inc.; and

2.    Based on my knowledge, these reports do 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 these
      reports.

Dated: March 29, 2006                   /s/ Neil Harrison
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Chairman of the Board, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)

                                        5
EXHIBIT 24

                   DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF NSC CORPORATION
                           ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


The  undersigned   directors  and  officers  of  NSC  Corporation,   a  Delaware
corporation  (the "Company"),  do hereby make,  constitute and appoint Victor J.
Barnhart, J. Drennan Lowell, Efstathios A. Kouninis, and Paul C. Remus, and each
of them, with full power of  substitution  and  resubstitution,  as attorneys or
attorney of the undersigned,  to execute and file, under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended,  the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year
ended December 31, 1996 and all amendments or exhibits  thereto,  and any or all
applications  or other  documents to be filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission pertaining to such Annual Report, with full power and authority to do
and perform any and all acts and things  whatsoever  necessary,  appropriate  or
desirable  to be done in the  premises,  or in the name,  place and stead of the
said  directors  and officers,  hereby  ratifying and approving the acts of said
attorneys and any of them and any substitute.


This action may be executed in counterpart.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have subscribed  these presents as of the
28th day of March 1997.

/s/  VICTOR J. BARNHART                           /s/  EUGENE L. BARNETT
Victor J. Barnhart, Chairman of the Board         Eugene L. Barnett, Director
and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)                                /s/  PAMELA K. M. BEALL
                                                  Pamela K. M. Beall, Director
/s/  DARRYL G. SCHIMECK
Darryl G. Schimeck, President and Chief           /s/  ROBERT J. BLACKWELL
Operating Officer                                 Robert J. Blackwell, Director

/s/  J. DRENNAN LOWELL                            /s/  HERBERT A. GETZ
J. Drennan Lowell, Vice President, Chief          Herbert A. Getz, Director
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)                     /s/  WILLIAM P. HULLIGAN
                                                  William P. Hulligan, Director
/s/  EFSTATHIOS A. KOUNINIS
Efstathios A. Kouninis, Corporate                 /s/  WILLIAM M. R. MAPEL
Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)         William M. R. Mapel, Director

                                 Page 87 of 88

<PAGE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARCUS KEON HOOD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-4977 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 16, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

SALARIO, Judge. We review this matter pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S . 738 (1967). Marcus K. Hood challenges the revocation of his probat ion and his resulting sentences for resisting arrest without violence and driving wit h a suspended license. We affirm the revocation of probation and the sentences imposed without comment. We remand only for the correction of a scrivener's error that a ppears on the face of the- 2 - written order of revocation. See Margolis v. State, 148 So. 3d 532, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Although the order indicates that Hood admitted to viol ations of conditions two and three of his probation, the record reflects that he was fou nd to have violated those conditions by the trial court following a hearing on the issue. On remand the trial court shall enter an order of revocation reflecting the correction of this error. Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3441]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-219-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

February 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, P.O. Box 1642, 
Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP97-219-000 a request 
pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for 
authorization to construct and operate a delivery point in Madison 
County, Kentucky so that Texas Eastern may provide natural gas 
deliveries to Delta Natural Gas Company (Delta), a local distribution 
company, under Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 
CP82-535-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Texas Eastern proposes to construct and install a 2-inch tap valve 
and a 2-inch check valve on Texas Eastern's existing 30-inch Line No. 
15 at approximate Mile Post 461.47 in Madison County, Kentucky. Texas 
Eastern states that in addition to these facilities, Delta will install 
a duel 2-inch turbine meter (Meter Station), approximately 54 feet of 
2-inch pipeline extending from the Meter Station to the tap and 
electronic gas measurement equipment. Texas Eastern also states that it 
will be reimbursed by Delta for 100% of the costs for installing the 
facilities, estimated to be approximately $73,753.
    Texas Eastern states that it will provide interruptible 
transportation service in order to deliver up to 2,500 Dth per day of 
natural gas to Delta pursuant to its Rate Schedule IT-1.
    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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3441 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 quarterly report of Western Massachusetts Electric Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Leon J. Olivier, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 registrant.     /s/Leon J. OlivierLeon J. OlivierChief Executive Officer   /s/David R. McHaleDavid R. McHaleSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:   August 6, 2007    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 15**

** **

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors andShareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed the condensedconsolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of June 30, 2005, andthe related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for thethree- and nine-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004.  These financial statements are theresponsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews inaccordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States).  A review of interimfinancial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures tofinancial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial andaccounting matters.  It is substantiallyless in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we arenot aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensedconsolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be inconformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

We have previously audited, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30,2004 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in ourreport dated November 24, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion onthose consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensedconsolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2004, is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which ithas been derived.

 

 
|                   | /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                   |                            |
| San Diego,  California |                            |
| July 27,  2005    |                            |

 

----
Exhibit 32   Certifications   In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of American General Finance Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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, 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/                                               | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      |                                                   | Frederick W. Geissinger  | 
|      | President and Chief Executive Officer             |                         
|      | /s/                                               | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      |                                                   | Donald R. Breivogel, Jr. | 
|      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |                         
|Date: | November 9, 2009                                  |                          |  | 

84
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

Mr. Russell W. Schrader, Esq.

Visa U.S.A., Inc.

P.O. Box 194607

San Francisco, CA 94119-4607

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. Schrader:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

Your comments concern disclosure features of the proposed injunctive settlement with

Kmart. You suggest that there may be other equally effective methods to communicate the

existence of dormancy fees or expiration dates to gift card purchasers and recipients. The

provisions in the negotiated order draw on the specific facts of the Kmart case, and are intended

to ensure that material gift card disclosures are communicated to consumers prior to purchase in

a clear and prominent manner. The specific injunctive provisions contained in the proposed

order are not intended to constitute the only way for such material disclosures to be conveyed

clearly and prominently. Thus, while the Commission appreciates your comments, it sees no

need to alter the provisions in the proposed settlement order, which was designed to provide

specific injunctive relief to remedy the particular facts presented by this case. 

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public interest

would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. 

Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and reimbursement

provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate the Order.

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1673

MIKE WILLOUGHBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HENRICO COUNTY; OWEN I. ASHMAN; LEE A. HARRIS, JR.; 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HENRICO COUNTY COMMONWEALTH'S 

ATTORNEY OFFICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00223-HEH)

Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mike Willoughby, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Ramsey Newby, OFFICE 

OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Henrico, Virginia; Sherry A. Fox, 

THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; Erin Rose McNeill, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mike Willoughby appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2012), 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and state negligence law. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Willoughby v. Henrico Cnty., No. 3:14-cv-00223-HEH (E.D. Va. 

June 27, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert Lee ERVING, Appellee.

No. 73-30.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Richard B. Muldrew, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.