alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE> 37

                                                                  Exhibit 32


                            Certifications


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 of American General Finance Corporation 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:  August 3, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 15 To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Cotton States Life Insurance Company: We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-30696, 333-00793, 333-00795, 333-110738 and 033-30696) of
Cotton States Life Insurance Company of our reports dated April 27, 2004, July
30, 2004, and November 5, 2004 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated
interim financial statements of Cotton States Life Insurance Company that are
included in its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2004, June 30,
2004, and September 30, 2004. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Atlanta, Georgia
November 5, 2004
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, E. Randall Chestnut, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2005 of CrownCrafts, 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: August 16, 2005     /s/ E. Randall Chestnut     E. Randall Chestnut
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,369
<SECURITIES>                                     3,792
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                       373
<INVENTORY>                                        292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,567
<PP&E>                                           2,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,970
<SALES>                                          5,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,242
<CGS>                                            1,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,180)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,180)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-64V Filed: May 14, 2015 [Not to be published]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KAREN JOHNSON, *

* Petitioner, * Attorneys’ Fees & Costs; Stipulation

v. *

*

*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Anne C. Toale, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL for petitioner. Althea W. Davis, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 1

Gowen , Special Master:

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 I issued a Decision on December 9, 2014, dismissing this Petition pursuant to petitioner’s motion to dismiss filed on December 8, 2014. On May 14, 2015, the pa rties filed a Stipulation of Fact concerning attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel also represented that petitioner incurr ed no out-of-pocket expenses in this matter.

The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended amount of $31,360.00 t hat petitioner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs.

I find that this petition wa s brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award fo r fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of F ederal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Va ccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the ident ified material fits within this definition, I will delete such material from public access.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq . (2006).2 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1) . Further, the proposed am ount seems reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award:

 a lump sum of $31,360.00 in the fo rm of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s attorney , Anne Toale, Esq., for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The clerk of the court shall ent er judgment in accordance herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L.Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s fili ng of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
#### Paul J. CRAWFORD, as Building Inspector of the City of Indian Rocks Beach, et al., Appellants, v. Hughes JOHNSON and Hilda P. Johnson, Appellees.

No. 72-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### ROYAL CASTLE SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation, Associated Indemnity Corp., a corporation, American Home Assurance Company, a corporation and Robert Gary Tyler, Appellants, v. Allan N. FIELDS, as Administrator of the Estate of Gary Jack Fields, Deceased, and Chris Lang, Appellees.

Nos. 76-2234, 77-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 3, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1978.

*948Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Sikes, Greene & Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellants.

Rossman & Baumberger and Robert D. Peltz, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendants below from an order granting a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the appellant-defendants in this wrongful death action.

In the order granting a new trial as amended, the grounds therefor were stated as follows:

> “The verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and/or the Court erred in allowing into evidence, over plaintiff’s objections, evidence that the defendant, GARY TYLER, had taken and passed a lie-detector test, and that the admissibility of said evidence was material and prejudicial, it is therefore: ”

Appellants present two contentions: First, that the trial court committed reversible error by denying defendants’ motion for directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s case on the ground that a prima facie case had not been made. Second, that the granting of the new trial was an abuse of discretion.

The first contention seeks review on a ground in addition to those stated by the trial court as the basis for the order granting new trial. While formerly such additional ground would not be subject for review [see: *Osteen v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company,*283 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); *Dorr-Oliver, Incorporated v. Parnell,*334 So.2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)] it is now held to be reviewable under *Bowen v. Willard,*340 So.2d 110, 112 (Fla.1976). Accordingly, we have considered said contention of the appellant in the light of the record, briefs, and argument and find it is without merit.

We hold that appellants’ contention that the granting of a new trial in this case was an abuse of discretion is without merit. Since the case is to be retried following remand we will omit a statement of the facts, as revealed in the pleadings and evidence. On consideration of the record, briefs and argument, upon applying the principles applicable hereto as pronounced in *Cloud v. Fallis,*110 So.2d 669, 673 (Fla.1959), we hold there has been no showing of a clear abuse of discretion and for that reason the order granting new trial will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.
#### Florence L. KUHN, Appellant, v. William A. JORDAN, Appellee.

No. 69-555.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 11, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
SHW-12.31.2013-EX10d






EXHIBIT 10(d)




Schedule of Executive Officers who are Parties
to the Amended and Restated Severance Agreements in the Forms Filed as
Exhibit 10(e) to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010 








Form A of Severance Agreement


Christopher M. Connor
John G. Morikis
Sean P. Hennessy




Form B of Severance Agreement


Robert J. Davisson
George E. Heath
Thomas E. Hopkins
Timothy A. Knight
Steven J. Oberfeld
Robert J. Wells




Form C of Severance Pay Agreement


Catherine M. Kilbane
Allen J. Mistysyn
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Melvin BUJOL v. Frank A. MARULLO, Jr., Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 61025.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Melvin Bujol applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Not considered. Issue is moot.
#### In re ESTATE of Louis A. KANE, Deceased.

No. 73-516.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Leroy H. Moe, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11.3

<TABLE>

CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars or shares except per share amounts)
Sixteen Weeks Ended November 13, 1999 and November 14, 1998

<CAPTION>
                                           Sixteen Weeks Ended
                                         ----------------------
                                          Nov. 13,    Nov. 14,
                                            1999        1998
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to
    common shares                        $ (3,343)    $  6,051
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,784       17,677
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,946)      (7,716)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,838        9,961
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares             $  (0.34)    $   0.61
                                         =========    =========
</TABLE>













                              43
=================================================================

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 100 SSM 4

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Jeffrey Mercado,

 Appellant.

Submitted by Claudia Flores, for appellant.

Submitted by Allen J. Vickey, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The 

determinations regarding founded suspicion of criminality

justifying a request to search the car, and then the trunk, and

defendant's consent to a search of the vehicle, all involve mixed

questions of law and fact. The determinations are supported by

- 1 -
- 2 - No. SSM 4

the record, and are beyond further review (see People v Valerio,

95 NY2d 924, 925 [2000]). 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges

Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur.

Decided March 26, 2015

- 2 -
#### Roosevelt PINKNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 18, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, and Thomas S. Keith, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A police officer at the trial of this criminal case, while testifying for the State, said that when he read the defendant his Miranda rights at the scene, “he (the defendant) didn’t make any statements at that time other than he had just bought it (the stolen automobile) for three hundred dollars and that he didn’t have the registration or anything like that to it.” If it were constitutionally possible we would apply the “harmless error” rule to the facts of this case and affirm. However, we feel compelled to reverse upon the authority of *Jones v. State,*200 So.2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); *Bennett v. State,*316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); *Farese v. State,*328 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); *Bostic v. State,*332 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Martin v. State,*334 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Shannon v. State,*335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); *Lucas v. State,*335 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); *Boyd v. State,*351 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed November 26, 1976); *Williams v. State,*340 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 3, 1976); *Collins v. State,*340 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 10, 1976); *Spann v. State,*340 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 17, 1976); *Maness v. State,*341 So.2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed December 24, 1976); *Sylvester v. State,*341 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed February 11, 1977).

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

CROSS, J.,

dissents.

I respectfully dissent on the basis that the officers comment was in clarification of his statement. Furthermore there is no possibility that the answer contributed to the conviction of the defendant. Therefore, I would affirm. .
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 7, 2016 D-36-16 

 

In the Matter of ATTORNEYS IN

VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW

§ 468-a.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANDARDS, ON MOTION

Petitioner;

HARALAMPO KASOLAS,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 4165536)

 

Calendar Date: March 14, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Mulvey, JJ.

 

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany, for petitioner.

Haralampo Kasolas, Riverdale, New Jersey, respondent 

pro se.

 

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in

2003, was suspended by this Court's order dated January 30, 2014

for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements

of Judiciary Law § 468-a (113 AD3d 1020 [2014]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he

has complied with the attorney registration requirements of

Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of
-2- D-36-16 

the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object

to respondent's application.

Respondent's application is granted and he is ordered

reinstated, effective immediately.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Mulvey, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application is granted; and it is

further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and

counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-175037) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-184397, 33-46865, 33-64380, 333-7328, 333-8270, 333-10156, 333-13988, 333-147914, 333-156093) of Rio Tinto
plc and Rio Tinto Limited of our report dated 14 March 2013 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                               |  |                                |  | 
|------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |  | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |  | 
|                               |  |                               
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP     |  | PricewaterhouseCoopers         |  | 
|London, United Kingdom         |  | Melbourne, Australia           |  | 
|14 March 2013                  |  | 14 March 2013                  |  |
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Beth Ullman MAYO, Appellee.

No. 72-1289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Petition for Exemption under Section FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

-95

FEB. 14, 2012
I, Siegfried Langmann , hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333. I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Inspire , Yuneec Q500 and Blade Chroma , in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography fo r real estate, construction firms, agricultural modeling, crop monitoring operations, aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to business advertising, promotional events, geological surveying, and environmental studies. The ability to provi de these services to local businesses and individuals in my community will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional methods of aerial photography/videography are simply not viable options for the average consumer as they are to costly and involve greater risks to everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achiev ed with much safer conditions. Prior to each flight/op eration of the UAV/UAS, I will conduct a Pre

- Flight Safety Inspection. Any and all repairs will be performed only by the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private property wi thout the owners permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 200 feet. The FAA can be confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater level of safety. I have operated remote controlled aircraft in a hobby setting safely for more than 20 years now and am also a member of the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics). The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Jase W. Robak, Mr. Todd Thomas Drone Pics, and Mr. Mike Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, all of whom have received Section 333 exemptions for comparable aircraft for similar operations. The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows: 14 C.F.R. Part 2 1; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5); 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a); 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c); 14 C.F.R 91.7(a) 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2); 14C.F.R. 91.109(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.119;14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. 9 1.203(a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2}; 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).
Please find attached the User Manuals, Safety Guide s and UAV/UAS Specifications

. Thank you for your conside ration. Sincerely, Siegfried Langm ann