alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Betty P. VIGNES v. John T. VIGNES. John T. VIGNES v. Betty P. VIGNES.

Nos. 7979, 7980.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 25, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

Andrew J. Bennett, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Donn Moss, of Hebert, Moss & Graphia, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding alimony to Betty P. Vignes, the divorced wife of John T. Vignes. Oral argument was heard on the question on May 9, 1969, and the court rendered judgment on that day without taking the case under advisement. The judgment was signed on May 14, 1969. On June 2, 1969, John T. Vignes was granted a devolutive appeal to *583this court conditioned on his furnishing bond in the sum of $800.00. This bond was filed on July 7, 1969, almost two months after the judgment was signed, and over 30 days after the motion for the appeal.

Under the provisions of Articles 3942 and 3943 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal from a judgment awarding alimony must be perfected within 30 days of the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial. Articles 1974 and 2087, Code of Civil Procedure. Under Article 1913, no notice of judgment was required in this case, since it was not taken under advisement and no request was made for notice of the date that judgment was signed.

Appellant points out that Article 2087 provides that the appeal must be taken *and security furnished*within 90 days, but that Articles 3942 and 3943 require only that the appeal be taken within 30 days. He reasons that the Code intends only that the motion for appeal in a case such as this be filed within 30 days, and appellant may file his bond at any time within the 90 day period. This argument is without merit, since it would have the effect of extending the appeal delay to 90 days, which is obviously not intended by the Code. The issue has already been settled by us in the cases of Bowden v. Bowden, 203 So.2d 879 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967), and Castille v. Castille, 221 So.2d 834 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1969).

In this case, the last day for applying for a new trial was May 19, and the delays for the appeal began to run on May 20. The 30th day after that date was June 18, which was the last day an appeal could be taken from the judgment complained of. Since the bond was not filed until July 7, the appeal was not perfected timely. Under the express provisions of Article 2088 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this court is without jurisdiction. The appeal is therefore dismissed at appellant’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
#### EXECUTIVE MOTORS, INC., Appellant, v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO, Appellee.

No. 72-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

Wm. K. Chester, of Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Haverfield, Miami, for appellant.

Alexander C. Mackinnon, and Charles R. Fawsett, of Johnson, Motsinger, Trismen & Sharp, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to transfer on the ground that the plaintiff had selected an improper venue. The defendant did not carry the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff had chosen an improper venue. The order of the trial court, therefore, is affirmed. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. National Bank of Melbourne & Trust Co., Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 665.

REED, C. J., OWEN, J., and SILVER-TOOTH, LYNN N., Associate Judge, concur.
No. 10522.

#### The City of Salem *v.*Estill.

Decided March 10, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

*Mr. C. F. Smith,*city solicitor, and *Mr. Lezvis P. Metsger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. S. Emmons*and ■ *Mr. W.*' *G. Wells,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### William F. CUZICK v. C. Paul PHELPS, Secretary, Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, et al.

No. 62162.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: William F. Cuzick, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary


Delegation of Authority; Patents and Inventions

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to Heads of the Public 
Health Service Operating Divisions all authorities to administer and 
make decisions regarding the invention and patent program of their 
respective Operating Divisions and the authority to make determinations 
of rights in inventions and patents in which the Department has an 
interest, except as specified below.

Restrictions

    1. The Secretary retains authority to submit reports to Congress.
    2. This delegation excludes those authorities under the Stevenson-
Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended by the Federal 
Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the National Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995, which are governed by a separate 
delegation.

Redelegation

    All authorities other than the authority under 35 U.S.C. 203 
(March-in Rights) may be redelegated.

Prior Delegations

    The prior delegations of authority, to the PHS Agency Heads 
(retitled Heads of Operating Divisions), derived from authority given 
to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) in 45 CFR Part 6. Those 
regulations were recently rescinded because they were obsolete (61 FR 
54743 (October 22, 1996)). In addition, the delegation of authority 
from the ASH to the then-PHS Agency Heads dated July 15, 1988, which 
was amended by a memorandum dated July 24, 1991 from the ASH to the 
Director, National Institutes of Health is hereby superseded. Prior 
redelegations by the PHS Agency Heads under that authority shall remain 
in effect unless modified by PHS Operating Division Heads.

 Ratification

    All actions taken by the Heads of PHS Operating Divisions or their 
subordinates from October 22, 1996 to the effective date of this 
delegation that would have been authorized under 45 CFR 6.2 and 
delegations thereunder are hereby ratified.

 Effective Date

    Effective upon signature.

    Dated: January 31, 1997.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 97-4038 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1102-1103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-164-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

January 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 20, 1996, Koch Gateway Pipeline 
Company (Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket 
No. CP97-164-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211) for authorization to construct and operate as a jurisdictional 
facility a meter station placed in service under Section 311(a) of the 
NGPA, under Koch's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-00 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Koch proposes to operate as a jurisdictional facility a meter 
station placed in service under Section 311(a) of the NGPA which will 
enable it to provide services to Louisiana Gas Service Company in 
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is

[[Page 1103]]

filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be 
deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for 
filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 
days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request 
shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-371 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### John C. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-566.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the ESTATE of Annie V. TURNER, Deceased. W. V. TURNER v. J. M. TURNER et al.

No. 45236.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 3, 1969.

Tom T. Ross, Harvey T. Ross, Clarks-dale, for appellant.

Ben M. Caldwell, Larry Lewis, Marks, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. D-2238.

#### In re Disbarment of Zdravkovich.

Dushko S. Zdravkovich, of Riva, Md., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
<PAGE>

               EXHIBIT 15 - INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT



Board of Directors and Shareholders
Cubic Corporation


We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Cubic Corporation as of June 30, 1999, the related condensed consolidated
statements of income for the three and nine-month periods ended June 30, 1999
and 1998, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the
nine-month periods ended June 30, 1999 and 1998. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be
performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of
September 30, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of income,
retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein) and in our report dated November 25, 1998, except for the second
paragraph of Note 11, as to which the date is December 7, 1998, we expressed
an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet at September 30, 1998, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has
been derived.

                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
August 5, 1999
#### GEORGE WASHINGTON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. June P. DANSON, Respondent.

No. 40182.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 15, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed. 237 So.2d 774.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          752629
<SECURITIES>                                    643793
<RECEIVABLES>                                   434542
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     496906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2562178
<PP&E>                                         2215141
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1065747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4359612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1165116
<BONDS>                                         160103
<COMMON>                                        188371
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2649745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4359612
<SALES>                                          47341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2681381
<CGS>                                            31277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    31277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2655682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  18471
<INCOME-TAX>                                     14297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4174
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           110237
<SECURITIES>                                   37435812
<RECEIVABLES>                                    235002
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               38038009
<PP&E>                                          1230183
<DEPRECIATION>                                   814253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 38491928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6515674
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                          53097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                     31923157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   38491928
<SALES>                                          119327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 990329
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    366954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 279091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                29389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  314886
<INCOME-TAX>                                       1700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              313186
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     313186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .07
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE> 34

                                                                  Exhibit 32


                            Certifications


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 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:  May 4, 2004
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 8 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

NALINI G. PREMSINGH, M.D.

and CHRISMAN-SAWYER BANK, f/k/a

FIRST CITY BANK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Case No. 96-3209

(D.C. 95-2275-EEO)

(District of Kansas)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before KELLY, HOLLOWAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 
2

Plaintiffs-appellants Nalini G. Premsingh, M.D. (“Dr. Premsingh”) and

Chrisman-Sawyer Bank, f/k/a First City Bank (“the Bank”) appeal the district court’s

decision granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee UNUM Life Insurance

Company of America (“UNUM”). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we presume familiarity with the underlying, undisputed facts, as stated by the district

court. See Premsingh v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 929 F. Supp. 1391, 1393-94 (D.

Kan. 1996).

On appeal, Dr. Premsingh and the Bank renew the arguments they raised in the

district court. The district court rejected these arguments in a thorough, well-written

opinion. In sum, the district court’s reasoning was as follows: First, the policy at issue in

this case unambiguously conditioned reinstatement upon payment of all premiums due for

past periods of lapsed coverage. See id. at 1395-96. Second, UNUM was not estopped

from denying coverage during the 1992-93 reinstatement process after having accepted

Dr. Premsingh’s overdue premium payment, because the policy’s reasonable requirements

for reinstatement had not been satisfied. See id. at 1396-98. Third and finally, no statute,

contract, or actions by UNUM gave it a duty to notify the Bank, as the assignee of Dr.

Premsingh’s right to receive benefits under the policy, that premium payments were

overdue. See id. at 1398-99.
3

We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons. We DENY Dr. Premsingh and

the Bank’s Motion for Certification of the first two of the above three issues: there is

controlling precedent on these issues in the decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court and

Kansas Court of Appeals; therefore, the questions do not meet the requirements for

certification. See 10th Cir. R. 27.1; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3201 (1994). The mandate shall 

issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
-**~~.** . . .' 

### · ·Swanson, Brian 

### (OST)

From: · Sent: To: Subject:

DearMr. Swanson: emwhite30@aol.com Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:35 PM Swanson, Brian (OST) DOT-OST-2004-19916 

## 59

I amwriting to support continuance of Essential Air Services at Visalia, California. The curre.nt carrier, Great Lakes Aviation, is my preferred carrier. Great Lakes Aviation's connection thru Los Angeles, California has allowed my·grandfatherto travel to our city mulitple times. He is eightythree years old and we appreciate the convience this service provides to our family. My father, who lives two hours away, has come to Visalia, California specifically to use this carrier because of the easy connection to the small town in which my grandfather lives. Again I support the Visalia, California air service and Iwould preferthat Great Lakes Aveiation remain the carrier. Please contact me at 559-635-4512 ifyouhave any questions orneed any additional details as to why I support Great Lakes Aviation. Thankyou for your time. EmeliaWesthite 5135 West. Modoc Avenue Visalia, CA93291. w

. 1
#### James M. WICHLACZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-37.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 10, 1973.

Thurman G. Justice, Cocoa Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael M. Corin, Tallahassee, and William W. Herring, West Palm Beach, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed upon authority of State v. Camil, Supreme Court, 279 So.2d 832, filed June 20, 1973, and remanded with instruction to discharge the defendant from further prosecution.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800Washington Boulevard • Baltimore MD 

## 21230 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101 • www.mde.maryland.gov

LanyHogan Governor BoydRutherford LieutenantGovernor

Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (3RAOO) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

# Dearj~ lfJtJ 

# l B**70f~** Ben Grumbles Secretary

On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted the Baltimore Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan and Base Year Inventory to EPA for the Maryland, Baltimore Nonattainment Area (BNAA) 1997 0.08 ppm OzoneNational Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) ("2007 Ozone SIP"). The 2007 Ozone SIPfor the Baltimore Nonattainment Area included (i) the 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory, (ii) the 2008 Ozone ProjectedEmission Inventory, (iii) the 2008 Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Plan, (iv) the RFP Contingency Measures, (v) the RACM Analysis, (vi) the 2008 Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Baltimore 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, (vii) the Attainment Demonstration (including modeling and weight ofevidence), (viii) the 2009 AttainmentYearInventory, (ix) the Contingency Measures for Attainment, and (x) the 2009 Transportation Conformity Budgets.

EPA acted to approve, in part, MDE's submittal on June 4, 2010. The approval consisted offirst six elements listed above. EPA would not approve the portions ofthe SIP relating to the attainment demonstration, concluding that the attainment demonstration, including modeling and the weight ofevidence did not project attainment by the area's attainment date. Since then the areahas monitored attainment ofthe 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. Thepurpose ofthis letteris to withdraw the remaining portions ofJune4, 2007 submittal.
Specifically, the State ofMaryland hereby withdraws (i) the Attainment Demonstration (including modeling and weight ofevidence), (ii) the 2009 Attainment YearInventory, (iii) the Contingency Measures for Attainment, and (iv) the 2009 Transportation Conformity Budgets, all ofwhich were submitted on June 4, 2007.

Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, please contactTad Abum, Air Director at 410-537-3255.

Ben Grumbles Secretary

## ~ Recycled Paper www.mde.maryland.gov TIYUsers l-800-735-2258 Via Maryland Relay Service