alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Claire F. SWALLICK, Appellant, v. Theodore W. SWALLICK, Appellee.

No. 76-2745.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

E. D. Cossaboom, Jr., of Hedman *&*Cos-saboom, Melbourne, for appellant.

Grady W. White, Melbourne, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Under the terms of a 1972 separation agreement the husband is responsible for child support until each child reaches age 21 or is otherwise emancipated. The trial court erroneously ruled as a matter of law, that the passage of Section 743.07, Florida Statutes, automatically terminated the husband’s liability for support when each child reached age 18. Section 743.07 changed the age of majority from 21 to 18 effective July 1, 1973. However, agreements or judgments for support entered prior thereto providing for support until age 21 remain binding and enforceable. *Daughtery v. Daughtery,*308 So.2d 24 (Fla.1975).

The judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed with directions for the entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion. In addition, since the trial court’s decision to deny the appellant’s application for attorney’s fee was based upon her failure to prevail in the action, that decision is also reversed with directions that a new *1120hearing be conducted on the issue of attorney’s fees.

REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter J. Zable, Chairman,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ W. J. Zable                                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. J. Zable                                       |   |
|   | Chairman, President, and  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                              |   |
|   | Date: August 5, 2009                         |   |

 

----
#### James WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-68.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. D-2215.

#### In re Disbarment of Dahling.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see *ante,*p. 1007.]
#### Ernest HARRIS, Jr., Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### POINT EAST MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. POINT EAST ONE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, INC., et al., Appellees. POINT EAST ONE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. POINT EAST MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. POINT EAST ONE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Leonard SCHREIBER et al., Appellees.

Nos. 70-938, 70-948, 70-1043, 70-949.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1973.

McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for Point East Management and Schreiber,' Pearl, Gesundheit and Gordon.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, for Point East One Condominium. ■

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida in the above styled cause filed July 31, 1973 (282 So.2d 628), the prior opinion and judgment of this court (258 So.2d 322) is hereby modified as directed by the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida and, except as modified, is adhered to. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R. 32 F.S.A.).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2016

NO. 03-15-00090-CR

Christopher Leverson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the county court. Having reviewed the record 

and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the county

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the county court’s judgment. The appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Presidential Documents 66255

Presidential Determination No. 98–8 of December 5, 1997

Presidential Determination on Waiver and Certification of

Statutory Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation Organization

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under section 539(d) of the Foreign

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,

1998, Public Law 105–118, I hereby determine and certify that it is important

to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions

of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100–204,

through June 4, 1998.

You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, December 5, 1997. [FR Doc. 97–33234

Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7009 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7009

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to make a technical correction 
 to clarify that colleges and universities located outside the United 
 States may participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program of the Department 
                          of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2020

 Ms. Wexton (for herself and Mr. Banks) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to make a technical correction 
 to clarify that colleges and universities located outside the United 
 States may participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program of the Department 
                          of Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Yellow Ribbon for Overseas Education 
Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO CLARIFY ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION 
              IN YELLOW RIBBON PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    Section 3317(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``the full cost of established charges (as 
        specified in section 3313)'' and inserting ``the full cost of 
        tuition and fees for a program of education''; and
            (2) by striking ``those established charges'' and inserting 
        ``such tuition and fees''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

BRAD LAMAR SMITH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:04-cr-000982-TLW-1; 4:06-cv-02101-TLW) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Brad Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Brad Lamar Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Otis CULPEPPER v. AMCO MESH & WIRE CO., INC.

No. 47010.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 5, 1973.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Watkins & Eager, Velia Ann Mayer, Hassell H. Whitworth, Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Reinhold Industries, Inc. of our report dated February 22, 2005, included in
the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of Reinhold Industries, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-101589) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Reinhold
Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-39925) pertaining to the Reinhold Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan
of our report dated February 22, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Reinhold Industries, Inc. incorporated by reference in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of Reinhold
Industries, Inc. listed in Item 15(a). These schedules are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.




                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Orange County, California
March 29, 2005
United States Position

Proposed IFC Investment in ContourGlobal Terra

May 16, 2013

The United States welcomes today’s discussion of IFC’s proposed support for ContourGlobal. 

IFC’s support for this company, which has pursued power generation opportunities across a 

number of countries, is strongly aligned with the IFC’s strategic priority of boosting private 

sector investment in infrastructure. As importantly, ContourGlobal has demonstrated its 

willingness to engage in difficult, frontier markets – we would note in particular 

ContourGlobal’s investment in Togo. The United States strongly approves of IFC’s efforts to 

find sponsors – like ContourGlobal – who are willing and able to work in riskier environments in 

order to help meet the significant infrastructure deficits that these countries face.

The United States also strongly supports IFC’s work with sponsors who are committed to 

adhering to high standards in addressing environmental and social risks associated with those 

investments. The United States is pleased that ContourGlobal, which according to staff already 

has strong systems to manage these risks, aspires to excel in its environment and social risk 

management systems. We believe that this is an area where the IFC can clearly add value. 

Finally, given ContourGlobal’s desire to achieve excellence on environment and social risk 

management, the United States wonders if IFC staff considered asking for a 120-day standard for 

the disclosure of ESIAs for greenfield Category A projects instead of the current 60-day 

standard. The United States believes that asking for a longer standard, particularly in an 

investment where there is a great deal of uncertainty about the pipeline of future projects, would 

have been appropriate. In conclusion, the United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on 

this investment for legislatively mandated reasons.
#### Wayne V. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Elmer G. THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 72-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 6, 1972.

J. Hagen, and J. B. Thompson, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

H. Glenn Waddell, of Shackleford, Far-rior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, and Guy N. Perenich of Muscarella, Perenich & Carroll, Clearwater, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Wright, defendant (and counter-plaintiff) below brings this interlocutory appeal from an adverse summary judgment on liability. He contends that the depositions and other evidence in this case left material issues of fact remaining, sufficient to preclude a summary judgment. We agree. The record in this case discloses triable issues at least as to the contributory negligence of appellee, if not as to the negligence of appellant. Therefore, appellant is entitled to a jury trial on the question of liability.1

Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

1

. *See, e. g.,*Cohen v. Dennis (Fla.App.1968), 209 So.2d 465. Also, cf., Stirling v. Sapp (Fla. 1969), 229 So.2d 850.
#### Michael Raymond NIXON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50450.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 26, 1978.

Swartzfager & Swartzfager, Paul G. Swartzfager, Jr., Laurel, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Henry T. Wingate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.27



 Exhibit 10.27 

Spousal Consent 
 The
undersigned, Li Nan (ID card No. ***), is the lawful spouse of Li Jianguang (ID card No. ***). I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction
Documents”) by Li Jianguang on November 25, 2013, and the disposal of the equity interests of Shanghai Tarena Software Technology Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Tarena”) held by Li Jianguang and registered in his name according
to the following documents: 
  

	 	(1)	Amended and Restated Equity Interest Pledge Agreement entered into between Li Jianguang, Tarena Technologies Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “WFOE”) and Shanghai Tarena; 


 

	 	(2)	Amended and Restated Exclusive Option Agreement entered into between Li Jianguang, the WFOE, Shanghai Tarena and Tarena International, Inc.; 


 

	 	(3)	Power of Attorney executed by Li Jianguang; 

  

	 	(4)	Amended and Restated Loan Agreement entered into between Li Jianguang and WFOE. 

 I hereby
undertake not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests of Shanghai Tarena which are held by Li Jianguang. I hereby further confirm that Li Jianguang can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the
Transaction Documents absent authorization or consent from me. 
 I hereby undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all
necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction Documents (as amended form time to time). 
 I hereby agree and
undertake that if I obtain any equity interests of Shanghai Tarena which are held by Li Jianguang for any reasons, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and the Amended and Restated Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into
between the WFOE and Shanghai Tarena as of                     , 2013 (“Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement”) (as amended from
time to time) and comply with the obligations thereunder as a shareholder of Shanghai Tarena For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign a series of written documents in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction
Documents and Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement (as amended from time to time). 
  

	
	 /s/ Li Nan


 Date: November 25, 2013
No. D-2209.

#### In re Disbarment of Goldstein.

Morton B. Goldstein, of Havre, Mont., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on November 6, 2000 *[ante,*p. 976], is discharged.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2208000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          362900
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        299900
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  408900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3279700
<COMMON>                                           400
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       788200
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             488900
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1277500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      22900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            885600
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               80300
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   87300
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  926100
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3279700
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       965300
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             96700
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      661500
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      758200
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         207100
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                9900
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  217000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         66200
<NET-INCOME>                                    150800
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        700
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   150100
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        210100
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        70200
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          220600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.65
        

</TABLE>
#### Antonio DUENES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3726]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-45, RM-8961]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Tylertown, MS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by TRL 
Broadcasting Company proposing the allotment of Channel 297A to 
Tylertown, Mississippi, as the community's second local FM service. 
Channel 297A can be allotted to Tylertown in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 5.3 kilometers (3.3 miles) southeast to avoid short-
spacing conflicts with the licensed operations of Station WBBU(FM), 
Channel 297A, Baker, Louisiana, and Station WKXI(FM), Channel 298C1, 
Magee, Mississippi, at coordinates 31-05-27 NL; 96-05-47 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 31, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Henry 
E. Crawford, Esq., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 900, Washington, 
DC 20036 (Counsel for petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-45, adopted January 
31, 1997, and released February 7, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 
857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-3726 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,066-01

IN RE JACKI L. PICK, Relator

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,

MOTION TO SEAL PROCEEDINGS, AND MOTION TO STAY

CAUSE NO. 05-22-00817-CV IN FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

CAUSE NO. OSW-22-00030-H IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

We have before us a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, a

motion to seal the proceedings, and a motion to stay. At this time, we grant the motion to

seal the proceedings, and we stay enforcement of the trial court’s order pending the

disposition of Relator’s motion for leave to file.

Filed: August 24, 2022

Do Not Publish