alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 3 0 9 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. J E S U S B A R R O N S O L I S , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 5 : 0 9

- C R

- 2 6 9 1

- 1

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M , G A R Z A , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t J e s u s B a r r o n S o l i s h a s m o v e d f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s

v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. B a r r o n S o l i s h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 15 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40309 Document: 00511382199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of World Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary B. Van Norman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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 the Company.



Date: April 27, 2007



|/s/ Gary B. Van Norman                           
|-------------------------------------------------
|Name: Gary B. Van Norman                         
|Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Voyle C. JOHNSON and Mary Howland, Appellants, v. Robert L. ACHOR et al., Appellees.

No. 73-508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Welcher, Miami, for appellants.

Robert L. Achor, in pro per, Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and James F. Crowder, Jr., Knight, Peters, Hoeneler, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Fugazy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 842; Rules 1.530(b), 1.570, Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.
SERVED FEBRURY 11 , 2011 . .:l:ff[^i?)M 

'''"''OPHRATiONS ..<H 

7011 FEB 1 1 P ^- ^ ° 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09NM0010 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0721 

SECOND AMENDED POST HEARING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

The Amended Post Hearing Briefing Schedule is hereby further amended as 

follows: 

1. Federal Express, Inc. shall file its Post-Hearing Brief on or before 

February 18,2011; and 

2. The Federal Aviation Administration shall file its Rebuttal Brief, if 

any, on or before March 7, 2011. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0010 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Courtney E. Felts, Respondent's Counsel 

Staff Attorney, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3''' Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125-8800 

TEL: 901-434-8632 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Lawrence W. Bierlein, Respondent's Counsel 

1101 30* Street, NW, Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20007 

TEL: 202-625-8355 

FAX: 202-625-4363 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administtation, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building -

Room 2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                          TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS, INC.
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    % OF VOTING
                                                                                                     SECURITIES
                                                                                                    OWNED BY ITS
                                                                               JURISDICTION OF       IMMEDIATE
                           NAME OF CORPORATION                                  INCORPORATION          PARENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------   -------------------    ------------
<S>                                                                          <C>                    <C>
Transatlantic Reinsurance Company.........................................   New York, U.S.A.            100%
     Putnam Reinsurance Company...........................................   New York, U.S.A.            100%*
     Trans Re Zurich......................................................   Zurich, Switzerland         100%*
     Transatlantic Re (Argentina) S.A.....................................   Argentina                   100%*
     Transatlantic Re (Brasil) Ltda.......................................   Brazil                      100%*
</TABLE>
 
------------------
 
* The common stock is owned 100% by Transatlantic Reinsurance Company.

<PAGE>
### 9259 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 34 / Friday, February 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules

in the Rules section of this Federal Register

.

Dated: December 30, 2014. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015–03451 Filed 2–19–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0554; FRL–9923–17– Region 6]** 
**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;** **Emissions Inventories for the Dallas Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston**  **Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to meet Emissions Inventory (EI) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Dallas-Fort-Worth (DFW) and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment areas. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions because they satisfy the CAA EI requirements for the DFW and HGB nonattainment areas under the 2008 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the revisions pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA’s regulations.

**DATES :**  Written comments should be received on or before March 23, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/ courier by following the detailed instructions in the **ADDRESSES** section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Nevine Salem, (214) 665–7222, salem.nevine@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In the final rules section of this Federal Register , EPA is approving the State’s SIP submittal as a direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register

.

Dated: February 9, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015–03448 Filed 2–19–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 21, 2018

a1114

Order 

Clerk

November 21, 2018

156782

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156782

COA: 332491

Wayne CC: 01-003031-FC

JUAN T. WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals holding that the trial court clearly erred in finding a reasonable probability that 

the defendant would have accepted the plea offer, and we REMAND this case to that 

court for consideration of whether Lafler v Cooper, 566 US 156 (2012), should be 

applied retroactively to this case, in which the defendant’s convictions became final in 

2005.

The Court of Appeals found clear error in the trial court’s memorandum opinion 

and in its statements during oral argument at a subsequent hearing. However, in its 

review of the record, the Court of Appeals failed to recognize that, at the end of that 

hearing, the trial court quoted the applicable standard from Lafler and unequivocally 

found that there was a reasonable probability that the defendant would have accepted the 

plea offer. This finding – made by the trial judge who presided over the trial and the 

evidentiary hearing – is supported by the record, and we are not “left with a definite and 

firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 

289 (2011).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 

9, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00526-CV

IN RE JOHNATHAN SIMMS, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

County Civil Court at Law No. 1 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1103691 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On July 5, 2019, relator Johnathan Simms filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.); see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable George 

Barnstone, Judge of the County Civil Court at Law No 1, in Harris County, Texas, 
2 

to vacate his order dated April 16, 2019, granting real party in interest Jennifer Dao’s 

motion for new trial. The new trial is preferentially set for July 17, 2019.

Relator also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to stay the 

trial set for July 17, 2019, pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with 

the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any 

underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement 

that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” See Tex. 

R. App. P. 52.7. 

Because relator has not provided our court with a transcript of the hearing on 

the motion for new trial or a statement that that no testimony was adduced at the 

hearing in connection with the matter complained, as required by Rule52.7(a)(2), we 

deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s motion for temporary relief 

is rendered moot by the denial of relator’s request for mandamus relief. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6249-6250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3263]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, 
and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 97-2658) published on page 
5232 of the issue for Tuesday, February 4, 1997.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco heading, the entry 
for Regency Bancorp, Fresno, California, is revised to read as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning,

[[Page 6250]]

Director, Bank Holding Company) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. Regency Bancorp, Fresno, California; to acquire Regency 
Investment Advisors, Inc., Fresno, California, and thereby engage in 
investment advisory activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(4) of the 
Board's Regulation Y, and in fiduciary activities, pursuant to Sec.  
225.25(b)(3) of the Board's Regulation Y.
    Comments on this application must be received by February 18, 1997.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 5, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-3263 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### DEERFIELD BEACH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Florida corporation, as Executor of the Estate of Harry S. Jacobs, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Myrtle EPSTEIN, Respondent.

No. 44324.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 21, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 690.

ERVIN, Acting C. J„ and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66856-66857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33273]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EG96-93-000]


Liberty Power, Ltd., Notice of Surrender of Exempt Wholesale 
Generator Status

December 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 2, 1997, pursuant to section 365.7 of 
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 365.7, Liberty Power, Ltd. filed 
notification that it surrenders its status as an exempt wholesale 
generator under section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility

[[Page 66857]]

Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33273 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
================================================================================

EXHIBIT  32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cyberfund, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, William J. Reilly, Chief
Accounting/Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


Date: April 5, 2007

/s/ William J. Reilly
----------------------------------------
William J. Reilly
Chief Financial/Accounting Officer










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-37556, No. 33-93896 and No. 333-31813 of TheWet Seal, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 17, 2004, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the restatement of certain prior financial statements to report the closure of the Zutopiadivision as a discontinued operation and a change in accounting principle), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2004. 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

March 26, 2004 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31460]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. (EST), December 8, 1997.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room 4506, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, 
DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of the minutes of the November 10, 1997, Board member 
meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: November 25, 1997.
Roger W. Mehle,
Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31460 Filed 11-25-97; 2:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

964 

CA 11-02438 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

KIMBERLY MITCHELL CONVERSE, 

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., DOLE FRESH 

FRUIT COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

AND LEONARD’S EXPRESS, INC., DEFENDANT.

(APPEAL NO. 3.)

 

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (R. ANTHONY

RUPP, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

CANTOR, DOLCE & PANEPINTO, P.C., BUFFALO (STEPHEN C. HALPERN OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Thomas

M. Van Strydonck, J.), entered September 6, 2011 in a personal injury

action. The order denied the motion of defendants Dole Food Company,

Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Company for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries she sustained when the tractor-trailer she was operating was

involved in a one-vehicle rollover accident. Plaintiff alleged, inter

alia, that Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh Fruit Company

(collectively, defendants) were negligent in the manner in which they

loaded the cargo that she was hauling, i.e., approximately 40,000

pounds of bananas. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion

for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Although

defendants established their entitlement to judgment by establishing

that the load was less than the maximum allowable weight under federal

law and that the contents were secured to prevent shifting during

transit, we nevertheless conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of

fact based on expert opinion sufficient to defeat the motion (see

generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). 

We reject defendants’ contention that the affidavit of one of

plaintiff’s experts, a mechanical engineer, is speculative and

conclusory. That expert opined that the static stability level of the

tractor-trailer was “unusually low,” thereby creating a high center of

gravity and an increased risk of a rollover accident. Although there
-2- 964 

CA 11-02438 

are no industry standards regarding the static stability level, he

relied on the results of tilt-table tests conducted at the University

of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (Institute), which

evaluated the static stability level of the vehicle that plaintiff was

operating, and, inter alia, research conducted at the Institute

regarding the increased potential for rollover accidents involving

vehicles with a static stability level below a certain level (see

Edwards v St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., 72 AD3d 1595, 1596). In light of

our determination that plaintiff raised an issue of fact, we need not

address defendants’ remaining contentions with respect to the

affidavit of plaintiff’s second expert. 

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court