alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
255 La. 146

#### DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY v. Amilcar J. TROSCLAIR.

No. 50212.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Dixie Pipeline Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Martin. 227 So.2d 13.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
EXHIBIT 21.1

TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS, INC.SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|                                           |  |                              |  |                                                  
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Name of Corporation                        |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | % of VotingSecuritiesOwned by itsImmediate Parent
|Transatlantic Reinsurance Company          |  | New York, U.S.A.             |  |                                                  
|Putnam Reinsurance Company                 |  | New York, U.S.A.             |  |                                                  
|Trans Re Zurich                            |  | Zurich, Switzerland          |  |                                                  
|Transatlantic Re (Argentina) S.A           |  | Argentina                    |  |                                                  
|Transatlantic Re (Brasil) Ltda             |  | Brazil                       |  |                                                  
|Transatlantic Polska Sp. z o.o.            |  | Warsaw, Poland               |  |                                                  
|TransRe Germany GmbH                       |  | Munich, Germany              |  |                                                  
|TRC (PANAMÁ) S.A.                          |  | Panama                       |  |                                                  
|Professional Risk Management Services, Inc |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             |  |                                                  





| 
|-
|*



---
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, E. Randall Chestnut, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 ofCrown Crafts, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: February 14, 2007                                                                   /s/ E. Randall Chestnut   E. Randall Chestnut   Chairman of the Board, President & Chief
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Graham Packaging
Company Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as supplemented by the Amendment No. 1, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Burgess, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Graham Packaging Company Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 2, 2011



By:

/s/ Mark S. BurgessMark S. BurgessChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.



49
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Corey Thomas Williams, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00089

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 264th District Court of Bell County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 72868 ). Opinion delivered by J ustice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Corey Thomas Williams, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOV EMBER 1, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### TI ORO

### Reporting Followup 

### Lehmberg, Laurie to: Kirsten

### Cappel 10/16/200906:36 PM Cc: "Johnson, 

### Cynthia (WashingtonDC)" 

### Show Details

Kirsten, 

### Page 1 of2

Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) appreciates the opportunity to further discuss our comments with EPA regarding the Reporting ofGreenhouse Gases; Proposed Rule, 74Fed. Reg. 

### 16448 (Apr. 

### 10,2009). To follow up on ourOctober 

### 13 conversation, we are providing suggestions'for process definition, considerations for how to establish process specific emission factors, and abatement destruction efficiency data.



### Process Definition:
"Process" is best described far 

### 200 and 

### 300 mm technology as Etch and Deposition with subcategories ofthe significant process types under each. This level ofdelineation best addresses the parameters which contribute to process emissions. Further delineation would notprovide additional accuracy ofemissions it only highlights confidential business information. The following spreadsheet depicts these process definitions.

Etch De Josition Dielectric Dielectric without Reagent Metal Dielectric Wafer Clean Metal with RPC RPC Thermal CF4 CHF3 C2F6 C3F8 c-C4F8 SF6 NF3 Proposed process definitions Factors to be determined separately for different wafer diameters



### Process Spedfic Emission Factor
The 

### IPee 2006 default factors shouldbe used for 1

### SO mm facilities. 

### IPee 2006 default factors should be used for 

### 200 and 

### 300 mm facilities which do not have Tier 

### 3 factors in their possession. EPA should allow the facilities to rely upon test datathat predates the 

### 2006 ISMI Guideline.
Overtime, fab and wafer diameter specific process

### emiss~on factors could 

### be developed for 

### 200 and 

### 300 mm tools where empirical data does not exist. Process emission factors could beestimated on a specific'tool platfonn and wafer diameterbasis using analogous empirical data and/or process specific parameters.

### Page 2of2

Abatement Destruction Removal**Emcien~y** Our abatementdevice manufacture has indicated that empirical data has been collected on equipmentthat

### has been in use for some period oftime. As anticipated, CF4's DRE is minimized whenthe abatementdevice is not set up for thatpurpose. Additionally, the results confinnedthat the DREfor the other PFCs is equivalentto that which was guaranteed at purchase.

TI appreciates the opportunity to provide input on these important issues and will make ourselves available to discuss these suggestions in more detail viateleconference at your convenience.

l.aurie A. Lehmberg Texas InstrumentsIncorporated Worldwide Environmental, Safety, and Health (214) 567-3961 (Office) (972) 927-3020 (Fax) f-Iehmberg@ti

.com 

# Aplease consider the environment before printing this e-mail
#### Dennis GRANT, Appellant, v. Sheila GRANT, Appellee.

No. 73-1283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart LaMotte, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2384 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2384

  To prohibit agencies from issuing vaccine passports, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

   Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Steube, Mr. Davidson, Mr. 
Cline, Ms. Herrell, Mr. Harris, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Roy, Mrs. 
  Miller of Illinois, Mr. Posey, Mr. Perry, Mr. Norman, Mr. Cawthorn, 
 Mrs. Greene of Georgia, Mr. Budd, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Hice of 
   Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform, and in addition to the Committee on 
House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit agencies from issuing vaccine passports, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``No Vaccine Passports Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AGENCIES ISSUING VACCINE PASSPORTS.

    (a) In General.--An agency may not issue a vaccine passport, 
vaccine pass, or other standardized documentation for the purpose of 
certifying the COVID-19 vaccination status of a citizen of the United 
States to a third party, or otherwise publish or share any COVID-19 
vaccination record of a citizen of the United States, or similar health 
information.
    (b) Agency Defined.--In this section, the term ``agency'' has the 
meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING PROOF OF COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR 
              FEDERAL ACCESS.

    Proof of COVID-19 vaccination shall not be deemed a requirement for 
access to Federal property or Federal services, or for access to 
congressional grounds or services.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Sooner Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 (the
"Report"),  I, R.C.  Cunningham  III,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that to my knowledge:

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

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

Date:  January 11, 2008
                                                     /s/ R.C. Cunningham III
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     R.C. Cunningham III
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


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





                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
#### John RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 8, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Charles Richard SPRIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2100-067]


California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Availability 
of Final Environmental Assessment

December 9, 1997.
    A final environmental assessment (FEA) is available for public 
review. The FEA was prepared for California Department of Water 
Resources' (licensee) application to expand the Feather River Fish 
Hatchery.
    In summary, the FEA examines the environmental impacts of three 
alternatives for expanding the hatchery: (1) licensee's proposed 
action: 600 feet of new raceways with hatching and incubation 
facilities; (2) proposed alternative: 1,600 feet of raceways; and (3) 
no-action. These alternatives are described in detail on pages two and 
three of the FEA.
    The FEA recommends the licensee construct 600 feet of new raceways 
at the Feather River Fish Hatchery in accordance with licensee's 
proposed action alternative. The FEA concludes that implementation of 
this alternative would not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    This FEA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing 
(OHL). Copies of the FEA can be obtained by contacting the Commission's 
Public Reference Room at (202) 208-1371.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32594 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# ----------------------------------------

# ...**~**

/ Vald-ez

:
_.**.:~~T?tillek ,~**  

### '

.....**_-;.~y;;~**

### Che~eg~;~ay'**~rince** ·• ·

### G;;,~,**~lask~~~~** Outelicak. -·**-~** __JWilliam Sound' !· \1'/ ,..- Port**Gnih.a'!IJ.~ Nanw~le~!**  

# Ch_ugachmiut
April 9, 2015
Subject: Village of Tatitlek Essential Air ,Service Federal docket num.ber: DOT-OST**-'2013-00~0** Dear 

## Mr. Faulk, Chugachmiut is writing in support_ofJ&M Alaska Air Tours, dba Alaska Air Transit (AAT), marked 'Prqposal A' providing two scheduled flights between Anchorage and Tatitlek per week. As the Regional Health Care Provider for the village ofTatitlek and Chenega Bay, Chugachmiut strongly recommends having more than one scheduled trip 

## a week; since the addition ofthe three scheduled flights to the village ofChenega Bay, Chugachmiut has not only been able to save money as a Non-Profit but is able to provide goods and services to the**vill~ge** more frequently. AAT is and has been the carrier of.choice for our staff, beneficiaries and any supplies or cargo needed to be transported to the villages ofTatitlek and Chenega Bay for over eleven years. AAT is consistently**reliabl~,** flexible and safety has always been their iop priority. In addition to excellent air service, the owners and staff of AAT take a sincere interest in the wellbeing ofour communities and beneficiaries. This commitment has been demonstrated time and time again from various travelers who have flown under Chugachmiut. Chugachmiut has seven Board Members and one each resides in both villages ofTatitlek and Chenega Bay; these directors are flown in regularly for quarterly meetings as well as special called to order meetings and the annual AFN Convention. AAT has been the air carrier for I00% ofthese flights. AAT will work with Chugachmiut to accommodate not only the director's needs but also Chugachmiut's.
It is highly irnportant to Chugachmiut to have a passenger facility that provides a warm dry waiting area that also provides cold storage for food and medications being transported. On behalf ofChugachmiut, we fully support their proposal.

# ~eerei~ 0 

# n 

# "----c::W
Angela 

### 1. 

## v

# ~rpool "-Executive**Dir~ctor**

18.10 Brogow Street, Suite 110 I AnchorGge.AK 99508-3463/ (907) 562-4155/ Fox (907) 563-2891 A Tribal Organization Serving the Chugach Natiy? Peoples ofAlaska TAMAMTA P:;;i "All of Ours"
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 21, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0586

Lower Tribunal No. F16-4938

________________

Ford Charlier,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge.

Ford Charlier, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16255]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of 
the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

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

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will 
be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 321, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEMS: Item No. 1: Resolution presented to a member of the 
Board of Directors upon his resignation.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public observation 
for Item No. 1 only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to 
attend the meeting should call Joyce Stone, Office of the Secretariat, 
811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571 (202) 565-3336 by close of 
business Tuesday, July 16, 2013.

Cristopolis A. Dieguez,
Program Specialist, Office of General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-16255 Filed 7-2-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 12.1 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF HISTORICAL RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES





Fiscal Year EndedApril 30, 2000
April 29, 2001
April 28, 2002
April 27, 2003
April 25, 2004Consolidated pretax income fromcontinuing operations

$
57.5

$
45.6

$
1.0

$
72.3

$
40.5Less equity in income (loss) of unconsolidatedjoint venture


0.3


(0.2)


-


-


-Interest


62.8


102.7


90.5


82.8


85.0Less capitalized interest


2.4


3.8


1.3


0.2


1.5Interest portion of rental expense


5.7


9.8


9.6


8.7


9.7Earnings

$
123.3

$
154.5

$
99.8

$
163.6

$
133.7Interest

$
62.8

$
102.7

$
90.5

$
82.8

$
85.0Interest portion of rental expense


5.7


9.8


9.6


8.7


9.7Fixed charges

$
68.5

$
112.5

$
100.1

$
91.5

$
94.7Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


1.8x


1.4x


1.0x


1.8x


1.4x


For purposes of determining the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings consist of earnings before provision for income taxes and extraordinary item plus fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest.  Fixed charges consist of interest on indebtedness, including capitalized interest, plus that portion of rental expense that is considered to be interest. This ratio does not include earnings and fixed charges of unconsolidated joint ventures.
Exhibit13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Reportof Compañía de Telecomunicaciones de Chile S.A. (the"Company") on Form 20-F for the period endingDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JulioCovarrubias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify that to thebest of our knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Date: June 29,2004

|  |            |                                                                                                                      |
|--|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | By:   | /s/ JulioCovarrubias                 |

|  |             |                   |
|--|-------------|-------------------|
|  | Name:  | Julio Covarrubias |

|  |              |                        |
|--|--------------|------------------------|
|  | Title:  | Chief FinancialOfficer |

----