alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Public Service Mutual Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v Color West Photo, Inc., et al., Defendants, *339and West Burritoville, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[736 NYS2d 364]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered March 19, 2001, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving whether defendants commercial tenant and its liability insurer are obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiffs landlord and building manager in underlying actions for personal injury and property damage arising out of a fire in the building, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring that defendants are so obligated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The insurance policy procured by defendant tenant from defendant insurer covers bodily injury or property damage resulting from defendant tenant’s ownership, maintenance or use of the leased premises if caused by, inter alia, “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially similar conditions,” and named as additional insureds plaintiff landlord and any person acting as the landlord’s real estate manager. Given these provisions, the declaration in favor of the landlord and managing agent was properly made upon uncontroverted evidence, gathered from a fire department record and depositions, that the fire started in the ceiling of the leased premises, and that the likely cause was constant heat on the ceiling joists generated by the HVAC unit used and maintained by the tenant and located in a loft that the tenant also used to store supplies. It does not avail defendants tenant and insurer that the underlying actions are for damages or injuries sustained by or in adjacent premises since such damages and injuries resulted from the tenant’s use of the insured premises. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
#### Gerald Robert MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-931.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Charles A. B. ZOOK, Appellant, v. Helen W. ZOOK, Appellee.

No. 72-723.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 20, 1972.

Appeal from Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Palm Beach County; Emery J. Newell, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,067
<SECURITIES>                                45,769,669
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    100,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,209,420
<PP&E>                                       1,230,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 904,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,576,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,766,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        53,097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,756,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,576,584
<SALES>                                        529,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,174,599
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  847,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,057,555
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,331
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,746
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             98,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    98,585
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, E. Randall Chestnut, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 26, 2004 of Crown Crafts, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 10, 2004                                                   /s/ E. Randall Chestnut   E. Randall Chestnut   Chairman of the Board, President & ChiefExecutive Officer
#### Zona W. REGISTER, Appellant, v. Clifton A. REGISTER, Appellee.

No. L-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Jan. 29, 1970.

George A. Pierce, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Albert S. C. Millar, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this court on appeal from an order modifying a final decree of divorce as to custody and support, only, of the two minor children.

It appears from the record on appeal' that this matter of modification as to custody and support was before the lower court on several occasions. The trial court plainly stated that the case had been before him so many times he felt that he was more familiar with the parties’ financial affairs than they were. In the latest petition for modification, after taking testimony, the trial court found that there had been no substantial changes in circumstances since the previous adjudications on former petitions for modification, and that the defendant-father was paying about all he could afford. A time limit was also fixed, setting the terminal point for support of the older boy at June 30, 1969 and for the other boy at June 29, 1970. These two dates occur before the minor boys reach their majority. It is possible that circumstances may not warrant a continuation of support after the specified dates, but we believe the trial court abused or exceeded his authority in predetermining what circumstances might exist after said terminal dates and before said boys reach their majority.

It is discretionary with the trial court as to whether any allowance should be made to defray college expense, with many factors entering into the question, one being whether the child is college material or not. These factors as well as others will continue to exist until a dependent child reaches his or her majority and must be determined by the court periodically when and if the needs arise and shall be dependent also upon the father’s financial ability to supply such needs.

For these reasons, that portion of the decree appealed from fixing the amount of support money to be paid by the father *685is affirmed but to the extent that said decree precludes further support after the specified times therein fixed, the same is reversed, and the appellant may be permitted to initiate proceedings for further support if changes in circumstances arise warranting the same.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Petition for attorney’s fees is denied.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Werner, Christopher

Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:35 PM

To: 'Szabo, Aaron'

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Jones, Rhea; Beaver, Melinda; Marks, Matthew; Anderson, Lea; VanLare, 

Paula; Greenglass, Nora; Smith, Kristi; Wood, Anna

Subject: EPA responses to Interagency Comments

Attachments: EPA RESPONSE to Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563_RHR 

NPRM_03222016.docx

Aaron, 

 

As discussed during today’s interagency call on EPA’s proposed revisions to the regional haze rule, attached please find 

document for interagency review. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, 

Chris Werner 

US EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Policy Division 

(919) 541-5133 

werner.christopher@epa.gov
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 20-10225 Conference Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Thomas Gerald O'Donnell, Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CR-560-1

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appoin ted to represent Thomas Gerald O’Donnell has moved for leave to wi thdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). O’Donnell has not filed a response.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 18, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10225 Document: 00515866237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2021No. 20-10225

2 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appe llate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 20-10225 Document: 00515866237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2021
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0137

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SHELBY BRYAN RAGNER, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including June 20, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 13 2022

05/13/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0137
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from form 10-k
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          65,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,374,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,523,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,583,469
<PP&E>                                       1,686,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                 860,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,649,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,872,377
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,855
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,501,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,649,093
<SALES>                                     13,121,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,121,376
<CGS>                                        9,028,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,204,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             287,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                635,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (470,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,105,337
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the quarterly report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Zorko, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company








/s/ Mark A. ZorkoName:  Mark A. ZorkoTitle:   Principal Financial OfficerDate:   March 12, 2010











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# ( C) of **~·l:~.ct-.** rn.::y c)j::in,itC or r... ·.:llCt:" cz· cc•ulro.1 **t}l~ i::=.u:::~c~**  c.f **~i.t· cor~­**  **t-=~~~~ilc.:nt~,** 

### z..;h"-ll first **obt.:t~~n** aut:lor.ir.Rt)c,:i fc!· :ouc·lt conGtructiO!l fr'-.:7&

**cr~ccled.** 

### lio pe:-r.:it to o:;.::n.te 

### or u::.e sl:all 

### be **c;r~:·.tct.i** eit!:•·r h:: **~l:c Ai~·**  

### 1-ollutic.-!·, Ct•:ltrol **Office~** 

### c!· t!-.e **Ecaril~t;** 

### Eo:::.!·d for o.ny .:::rticlc, **o:1~hinc, cn:.n.~::.ci-·**  

### o:- cc.n';.rivar:ce 

### ,lc·;:;.c:-i'oeC. in .:lul" 10 (?.), 

### constr•:ct<,d

### or **in:;lZ~.ll**

### ed **,,it~­** 

### out **Duthori:o.t:.~:** 

### u5 **req~ired ~y**  

### Rule 10 **(~),** Pnlil **th~ infcr~ati0n**  

### :-equir<:d
**i~** ;:;:·c:.:::r:tcd 

### to ti:c· 

### i.ir l'c.llutio:•Cc·n'.rc:!. C!'f.i.ccr a:-..: s:..ch ot!ao· ccntri.,-;:::::<:: **c~::** ..

### cribcd 

### ia **!~ulc** 10 

### (b) f:i.:,ll !'inalyu.f!'ix

### Lt:Ch pcr::-.i.

**~**

# ( **~ULS** 

### 10. (Cor.t.)
**~** 

### HuLS 11. or 

### f<tl::.ify ll ?C.r::-.it to OFcr::.tc <•:::; article, c.:1cllir:e, **cq::ip::u~r:t,** or other contriVl.lr.Ce.
EXHIBIT 11



DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
THREE MONTHS AND NINE MONTHS ENDED MAY 2, 1998




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Three Months Ended               Nine Months Ended
                                          May 2, 1998                      May 2, 1998
                                 -------------------------------  -------------------------------
                                                       Per Share                        Per Share
                                 Net Income    Shares    Amount   Net Income    Shares    Amount
                                 ----------    ------  ---------  ----------    ------  ---------
<S>                              <C>          <C>         <C>     <C>          <C>         <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:

Income available to common
       shareholders              $1,444,741   7,541,988   $.19    $4,064,208   7,484,513   $.54
                                                          ====                             ====


Effect of Dilutive Securities:

Warrants                                         18,946                           19,461

Options                                         667,894                          687,064
                                 ----------   ---------           ----------   ---------       
Diluted Earnings Per Share       $1,444,741   8,228,828   $.18    $4,064,208   8,191,038   $.50
                                 ==========   =========   ====    ==========   =========   ====
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 10, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40136 Summary Calendar

MELHEM NAJIB IBRAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-cv-00139

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Ibrahim, a Lebanese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1977, filed a naturalization application (“N-400) on May 5, 2004. After more than 120 days had passed without a determination on his N-400, Ibrahim, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447, applied to the United States District Court in the district of his residence for a hearing on the matter. At a bench trial addressing the matter, the district judge denied Ibrahim’s application based on his failure to meet both the residencyNo. 06-40136 -2- requirements and good moral character requirement, both of which are necessary for naturalization. Naturalization is not a natural right but a privilege. Taylor

v. United States, 231 F.2d 856, 858 (5th Cir. 1956). The burden to prove that all of the statutory qualifications entitling one to this privilege rests with the applicant and all doubt is resolved in favor of the Government. Id. at 858. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a),

an applicant must show that he meets both the good moral character requirement and the residency requirements. Because Ibrahim has failed to show that he meets the good moral character requirement, we need not reach the residency requirements. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(e) provides that the inquiry into good moral character is not limited solely to the five years preceding the filing of the naturalization application. Additionally, 8 U.S.C. 1101(f) provides, “For purposes of this chapter, no person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of goodmoral character who, during the period for which goodmoral character is required to be established, is, or was...(6) one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining anybenefits under this chapter.” The record indicates that Ibrahim was arrested four times and fled the United States twice in order to avoid prosecution. Furthermore, there are numerous instances within the record of Ibrahim’s false testimony on his N-400 and at the bench trial offered in an attempt to secure his status as a naturalized citizen of the United States. Therefore, we find errorNo. 06-40136 -3- neither in the district court’s determination that Ibrahim was not

a person of good moral character and nor its ruling that he should not become a naturalized citizen. We AFFIRM.
#### CITY OF MADEIRA BEACH, Florida, Petitioner, v. Joseph W. HOGAN, Respondent.

No. 69-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Nov. 5, 1969.

W. Furman Betts, Jr., Madeira Beach, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for petitioner.

David F. Patterson, of Bryson & Patterson, St. Petersburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This court has heretofore treated the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. We have reviewed the briefs and all papers filed in this matter and find that the circuit court, sitting as the appellate court, committed no reversible error. The writ of certiorari is therefore denied.

LILES, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.